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:
The bottom line, in this article, said these women will be able to get promotions, and higher pay. Also, this training is about Combat Engineers, not combat front line fighters. So, this means these women that pass these tests, could be used as Engineers, close to where fighting is happening, and are able to defend themselves, and that is a good thing.
Dont know much about Combat Engineers in general or sapper specifically do you.
I say that if women want to do this type of job let them. Women should have the same equality in any job. I know some people say women should not be in combat for what could happen to them if they are captured. The same thing if captured could happen to men. I ask are males lifes just as important as women? You pass the test, you fit in.
Ken, chivalry, or the basis behind chivalry is that men's lives are not valued as highly as that of women's. I truly believe this to be an outdated way of thinking, women were more highly valued because they could bear children while men were used to defend whatever kingdom and their deaths didn't limit birth rates in the same manner that the deaths of women would have. Society at large doesn't need women for their birthing abilities in the same sense that they were needed during the times when chivalry was undertaken because our population is out of control anyway.
Most men will never concede that women are their equals. Period. The comments on this post prove it. It takes a man who a has a very strong sense of self-worth and open-mindedness to admit that women can do everything men can do. Actually, women can do more and usually do it better. Wake up guys, and oh, go make your own damn dinner.
ps: No I'm not a lesbian. I've been happily married to an open-minded man for 26 years. I have 6 sons who firmly believe that women are their equals.
Your sons have my condolences. Women are not the equal of men in all roles. Men are better cooks; heavy laborers and clothing designers. Sure you can say women are equals and then go to any third world country and see the reality. We have the myth of equality because we have become a service economy - where strength and cunning are not required to put food on the table. When we are all sedentary we are equal. You'll always have a handful of women who can compete with men but in the Army we're talking thousands of combat troops not the two or three they trot out for the cameras. Since when did a sense of Self-worth and open-midness make a man competitive in any environment. On the battlefield men don't compete with women, they compete with other men and its brutal and vicious. Now if you want your daughters to revel in this type of environment and then go home and try to be mothers - you're crazy.
artsylady....wow what a typical feminist comment. You first say that most men will not admit that women are their equals, then you go on to say that women are superior!
So it's OK for a woman to say that women are superior but a man can't say that men are superior? Maybe instead of artsylady we should call you Miss Andry.
Right? Your own statement proves your deficiency in mental prowess, you claim equality and in the same breath espouse superiority. I'll be happy to make my own dinner, I'm a better cook than any woman I've ever known well enough to allow to cook for me, a gesture on their part I was happy and appreciative to accept. I won't say that men are better than women in general but I would never believe the opposite to be true either, however from a personal perspective, I've never known a woman to be my equal in any arena and I've known a lot of them, while at the same time interestingly enough I've crossed paths with numerous men with area specific skill sets that surpassed my own. Take the trash out yourself, you sad, weak minded and insecure excuse for a female.
I am a Viet Nam Vet ( 1st Cav - 12th Inf) 1965-66, used to be very anti-female in combat- with that said I am not so bull headed any more- examples of women in hand to gland combat is old news- Russian sniper battalions in WW2, Israeli women in front line tank units, snipers as well- abilities vary even with men in combat units- If the person can handle the duty so be it!
PS Women VC can kill you just as quick as men.
Let me start off by saying that I’m currently in the military, so anyone who wants to bash my statements as chauvinistic or misgogynist can shove it! That being said, before people start the whole, women vs men, anything-you-can-do-females-can-do-better, female deification crap plaguing the country, it would pay to remember that A :) they're both officers, B:) they’re west point graduates. It’s gender-biased to think that either of those two criterions are indicative of women as a whole in combat.
All officers, male or female, are generally in the best conditioning of their life, and expected to maintain elite physical standards -- I suppose the same is true for West point. Can the same be said, for lower enlisted, out-of-shape, females who never get off the couch? No! That's not even taking into account the numerous teases, tarts, lesbians, “Wah wah, I don’t have a pee-pee” complexes, and females who work the system to their advantage, giving male-female interaction a bad name period. A more accurate portrayal would be that two female, west point grads, made it through sapper school. It’s been my experience, that anytime men and woman function together militarily, they’re generally a constant distraction. Plus, by military regs, females can't be out in a field environment for more than a few weeks cause of, you know, lady problems. Do I think men and women should be in close quarters during combat ops? Heck to the No!
Are you meaning to say there are no lower enlisted, out-of-shape, MALES who never get off the couch?
who do we try to fool here?....no way nohow women will pass that training unless is either watered down or just plain no way!!
First off, I earned my Sapper tab in 1980. I have seen Front line combat,,in 6 different actions/Theaters. That said..The general public, and women advocates refuse to make the distinction between Front line COMBAT action and being in a combat environment. In one,,you are face to face with the enemy literally. The other you are in the "zone" of combat/conflict and possibly in danger. Combat pilots are not the same thing, nor are women on ships. I can personally say that training is not even 10% of what actual infantry combat is. In training you are NOT under the threat of loss of life. In training, you mess up, there is a time out. In Combat, you die, or cause the death of a fellow soldier. The living conditions in front line infantry do not equate to "training", this is respect to hygiene, privacy, fellowship, and a host of other things. You are rarely afforded commodes, showers, hot food, private sleeping accommodations. You live under the threat each and every moment of active conflict. Yes, support troops serve with valor and die, but it is not their calling. WE have numerous 100's actually of issues with women in close proximity with men in uniform, that would pale if women were allowed in in infantry units.
Common sense will never influence an agenda. You can not present any evidence that is going to make a realist out of an idealist.
Excellent! as one such as yourself who has walked the walk. That was my earlier point women can and should be allowed to serve their country, they are patriots and deserve respect, just not in front line combat action. Thank you for your service!
The author of this article is not being honest. All women in the military from day 1 have lesser physical standards and the pattern continues through all the schools they attend. The article is meant to prove that women can pass tough courses and handle combat but in it fails to mention the lesser standards. Lets put women through Sapper, Airborne, Ranger, Special Forces, and Delta training with the same standards as men and see how many pass? I read an article about women suing to be allowed into combat units, well maybe the men should sue for having to meet higher physical standards than women. If women want equal treatment/access then they should be demanding the same standards as men. The military should not lower men's requirements to allow women in either if they were to have just one standard, after all that would be "rigging" just as much as having two standards.
Physical strength is necessary--- so is intelligence---------some men are all "Brawn and no Brains"----so being male is not always the answer!!!------if a woman measures up to the standards then "give her the job!!"
If they are all "brawn and no brain" they would not be in a position to take the training. The days of cannon fodder are long gone. MOST soldiers of today are above the general population level in both.
There are an awful lot of women who lack in both departments, what should we have them do?
Good for both of them.They have proved themselves worthy of anything the army can throw at them.These women deserve our respect as women and soldiers!
No they have proved they can handle the watered down standards the military adopted in order to get an arbitrary number. Respect comes from doing the exact same job to the exact same standard, but it has to be a high enough standard to earn respect. ANYONE of any gender, even those whos gender is questionable, that can do that then yes they deserve the title and the respect.
Look if men and women are the same why the different PT standards? If men and women are equal why was the airborne PT standards lowered to where they are now. Which last time I looked was over 8mins per mile? I will tell you why. The standards were lowered when they let women JOIN the airborne. Don't hate me for relaying the truth. I didn't make the new standards either. I'm simply saying, if equal then why the separate standards?
Besides lets quit beating around the bush. This is engineer school not Ranger school. Put the women through that school and then lets talk about combat roles. Otherwise I will call you women when I need a bridge built or destroyed. The fact that many of you won't admit is that men are just physically stronger, faster and have more endurance plain and simple. We are just built that way. Sure a few women could handle the combat role but who the heck wants to be on the receiving end of an experiment when your life is on the line? You make the choice do you want a dude who is 6 ft tall 180 lbs or a 5'4" tall 130 lb woman who was a stellar athlete in high school and college and a military academy grad yet had to recycle?
I agree with most of your post but dont be so fast to down play the role of Combat Engineer in general and sapper specifically. No it is not Ranger school, but one of the roles is provide the means for combat units to get where they need to be, building that bridge before infantry units even get to the scene. When needed combat engineers are there first and the longest. And no you would not want to call a female to handle vital heavy bridge sections under fire for you ... to use your example. Sappers need to destroy the enemies means of conducting operations before the advance of infantry units can take place. I respect the Ranger but as I said, you have some misconceptions.
Dennis no offense to you or Sappers but the misconception lies with you if you think that Sappers are on scene before the Rangers. Carry on.
Where did you get the impression I stated any such thing? Reread the post
females are equal in dignity, but THERE are differences (other than physical) between men and women . The article doesn't say if these females are p#v#rts are not, they could possibly be taking tetosterone, and so therefore don't really qualify as women. I get upset when they refer to b#ll dyk#s as women, they're fr##ks, not women, please understand the difference. I am one woman that is happy to be 100% woman.
As in any countries true defensive forces a soldier is trained in accordance to their abilities not their gender...so I say drive and make it happen...
A woman's equipment does not have to weigh as much as a man's. Her clothes are smaller and if her backpack only needs to weigh 60 pounds rather than 80 why should she be required to carry the weight of a pack designed for a man. Russian armed forces were much stronger because they choose to use women and of course there will always be details to work out but much the same problems will exist whether or not the force includes females. Much of the same arguments were used to exclude blacks from full military service for years.
I spent 20 years studing the Russian Armed Forces up close and their women were nurses, admin types and entertainers - they had no combat role or combat support role. Nice imaginary justification.
You missed something somewhere because they were used for just about every task during WW II. I have pictures in books with women guarding prisoners etc. some operating tanks driven straight from the tank factory etc.
Prog.1, that's funny and all but if you are equal, you carry equal weight right? When you are training, they actually WEIGH your ruck sack to make sure everyone is equal. Isn't equality want you we all really want anyway? I could be wrong, it's been about 20 yrs since I was a Ranger. I hear it's a kinder, gentler military these days.
First, they're not "warriors"; they're wannabees. If you've never fired a weapon in combat, you're not a warrior. Too many women play pretend for the cameras. They managed to accomplish what 60 other women had previously done - so who cares. Not a news story. The fact that you can have a single woman pass a test that is routinely passed by hundreds of men is nothing to brag about - it is an accomplishment for a woman; but is no excuse to drop standards or make exceptions to standards. I'm all for women in combat; I'll be right behind them. You'll also notice that one of the reasons they got into the course was they were West Point graduates; the Army uses them as poster children everywhere.
Most babies crawl before they walk and the military needs a starting point, just as these two trainees said they are doing it in part for those who come after them. Just as many women had to fight for years for the right of women who came after them to have the right to vote.
I don't understand what the problem is from all the male chauvinists here. This training was NOT watered down, and these women performed as well, or better, than their male counterparts. If they earn the rating, let them do the job.
Doesn't anyone here realize that, in most species, the female is the deadlier of the two? Just open all billets to anyone who qualifies, and let them decide for themselves if they want to serve in combat roles. If they pass the same course, they have earned the right.
Yes the standards are watered down. If they were not there would be no question and the entire subject would be irrelevent (in the military or any other occupation). But when you dumb down and lower standards to meet an arbitrary artificial number to meet a P.C. agenda dont be surprised with lack of respect and lowered expectations. Anyone who meets the exact same high standards under the exact same conditions there is absolutely no question of their ability to do the job and has my support and respect ..... that is not the case.
SingBiker, how many enlisted women went through this course? Not watered down huh? How about the one "stellar athlete" had to be recycled? Is that outperforming? How about the westpoint grad had to "train up" for the course. I can assure you that the enlisted don't get that same opportunity to "train up" on military time. I saw that all day long with the Best Ranger competition where officer's were allowed to train on the govts time. Enlisted generally don't get that same advantage. I went boot, advanced infantry, Airborne and RIP all one after the other with no "train up" allowed. My train up for Ranger school was what every Ranger does for PT every day. No extra train up needed. Just bring your instestinal fortitude.
I served 26 years as a Combat Engineer along side some of the best male and female soldiers who all volunteered. The Sapper Leader course is similar in design and construct to the USA Ranger School and in my personal opinion, is every bit as tough. Female soldiers (officer and enlisted) are every bit as capable as their male counterparts. From my personal experience as a small group instructor at the Engineer School as well as combat tours in both IRQ and AFG, they often perform better than their male contemporaries.
But in the end, all of you who have never volunteered by raising your hand to take the oath that we did, to sacrifice ourselves if necessary, not just life in Service to our country but most importantly for those in our unit, male and female who were also willing and capable of doing the same for us, enjoy your freedom to spew forth all the disparaging remarks you want by the men and women of the United States military. Hooah! One Team, One Fight!
Sapper excuse me if i call BS. No female from the US is serving in ground combat so how on God's green earth are they out performing their male counter parts? Riddle me that one? If you think Ranger School and Sapper school are comparable, how come no female has passed Ranger School? In your personal opinion.
Rooster, females are currently not assigned to infantry or armor units, but they are involved in ground combat when they attacked with both direct and indirect fires during attacks by enemy forces, both now in AFG as well as during Iraq.
As for Ranger School, no females have passed Ranger School yet because none have been admitted.
While both courses are physically demanding, for both of them the bigger challenge is the mental toughness required to succeed in combat. They both train "confident and competent leaders to throroughly plan and aggressively execute combat" missions (infantry and engineer, respectively).
As the Ranger School prep material states, "Train your mind with your body and come prepared to give 100% of yourself everyday".
Feel free to sign up today at www.goarmy.com Hooah!
Some men are just not comfortable with women who are equal to or superior to themselves and they have a vested interest in putting these women down. It is much the same as conservatives who only think women are capable of performing certain tasks, somehow women who do otherwise are a threat to them. In years past in this country many did not want women driving cars you know the famous women driver jokes.
Now send these women into combat during their period with bloodhounds from the enemy looking for them. Has the Army developed a master cork? that also controls the mind so that a woman can work seamlessly through her period. If so, great! The women of the world want that solution.
A combat qualified woman, on her period, on the frontlines?? I'd hate to be the enemy!!!
Anybody who has never heard that the female of a species is the more deadly needs a serious wake-up call.
rober34! You know not which you write.Bloodhounds follow scents but not neccessarily blood scents.The pickup the nuasences on our body oders that permeate our clothes,shoes and the air around us.That is mostly what bloodhounds follow.If the enemy had bloodhounds tracking a group of our soldiers,I doubt seriously,the bloodhounds life would last more than a few hours,if that.Go back into your mommys' basement and lookup "bloodhounds" on our ifone and read how they detect people.You have a nice unprodective life,ok!
Mas you are the who doesn't know what they are talking about. If you think a dog cannot pick up on a woman's ordor over a man you are sorely mistaken. Ever see a dog eat a pair of women's under wear? Why? That same scent you say that they won't be able to detect. Ever seen a dog eat a man's underwear? I didn't think so. Why I described to you may seem gross but it's the exact words use at dog handlers courses. Some of our adversaries know that the US soldier primarily smoke or dip tobacco and has trained thier dogs to sniff it out. Plz don't post on topics that you THINK you know about. Because in this case, you are 100% WRONG.
So why are women warned about camping in known bear country during that part of their cycle? Every time my ex had her rag she moaned and whined for 4 days about the severity of her cramps and was constantly seeking a heat source for relief, that is one deadly force let me tell you! That said, women in combat conditions probably wouldn't experience a regular period because the female body actually shuts that thing down under times of severe stress and malnourishment as well as excessive exercise, legitimately. It's connected to body fat deposits and hormonal release from the pituitary and the gonads, (in women they're specifically called ovaries), it can also harm the reproductive system if it goes on for too long.
My hats off to you young ladies. Way to go!!!
Back in the "dark ages" LOL 1979, I was the 2nd female ever to be assigned to the Missile Facilities Squadron. Yes, we worked on Minuteman III missiles. I took major sh!t when I arrived. They made my life hell. But, I did have a few guys who accepted me and took me under their wings as they say. They old farts, much like the old geezers in the GOP couldn't stand a young FEMALE working under their as they felt their world. But, I toughed it out and continued. Trust me, back then in 1979 it was very difficult. I'm sure women now still face the hardships. Girls, NEVER GIVE UP. JUST GO GIRL!
A hearty BRAVO ZULU to both Moton and Turnnidge for their success!
catmando, of those countries you mentioned have any women actually been in combat? I don't think men are prepared psychologically to see women wounded and killed. We have a primal instinct to protect women. Flying a jet or helicopter although dangerous is not the same as patrolling in the mountains of Afghanistan. I'm not demeaning women for wanting to serve I just feel there are some things that women shouldn't be doing.
There will always be exceptions to the rule.That does not mean the rule needs to be broken.
This is a commendable achievement but let's not get deluded here. Training is not combat. Women should not be in combat. I mean no disrespect. They are the softer sex. If its any consolation there are a lot of men who shouldn't be in combat either. Its not that they lack the will or the warrior spirit but they could be liabilities to the other warriors on the battlefield. Not everyone is fit to play pro sports. Not everyone is fit to be a warrior. Anyone can be trained to be battleground fodder but that is not what we are going to deploy.
PLEASE don't insult my intelligence! Passed the same test? NOT !!! I was in the police and fire departments. Women were given the "same" tests. There was the woman's test and the men's test. Extremely different. Young women couldn't pass the physical tests that 65 year old firemen could. So they altered the standard and times so they could pass. Those giving the test were forced to allow the women to pass for face disciplinary actions. So don't paint this testing pink just yet. Story teller, Jim Miklaszewski, do you believe that pigs fly???
You won't find too many 65 YO firemen working full time. Retirement in major departments is 50-55, for some of the reasons stated. There is a world of difference between the fire and the police physical testing. They is not much slack cut for women who are firefighters, because of the true nature of the job. I would really not want to mess with a female firefighter from a major US department.
I would put the women I work and train with up against any 65 year old male. I also work with male ski patrollers in their 60's, and as good of shape as they are in they'd be the first to admit that they can't keep up with their younger female peers.