On Friday, February 1, the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) released a "Quick-Look Analysis of Survey Results Assessing the Implications of Possible Changes to Women in Service Restrictions".
The 5-page paper, dated September 2012, summarizes results of a survey
of active-duty Marines on the subject of women in combat, which was
conducted from May 30 to August 31, 2012. 


Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, obtained a copy of the 16-page CNA survey instrument in June 2012, and prepared an analysis of the 122 questions asked.  Mrs. Donnelly released the following statement on the incomplete survey results:


September 2012 CNA 'Quick-Look Analysis of Survey Results,' belatedly
released on a Friday, seems intended to manage public perceptions that
are not supported by still-undisclosed research data.  If the survey of
Marines revealed significant support for the assignment of women in "tip
of the spear" direct ground combat units, detailed poll results would
have been announced in full and proclaimed a 'success' four months ago. 


"The survey instrument, unfortunately, missed the opportunity to ask the most important questions.  For example, 'How would the assignment of women to Marine infantry and Special Operations Forces improve mission effectiveness?' And, ' Do you favor or oppose the elimination of all direct ground combat exemptions for women?'  Conclusions cannot be drawn from questions not asked.


polling instrument also failed to provide an accurate definition of the
issue at hand: direct ground combat element units, meaning small
fighting battalions that close with and attack the enemy on the ground.
 (infantry, artillery, armor, Special Operations Forces and Navy SEALs)  


many civilian polls, this survey often used the undefined word
‘combat,’ which generally means dangerous war zone assignments that are
‘in harm's way.’  The imprecise wording casts doubt on survey results,
which could have been more useful if more precise terminology had been


also are skewed by the survey's frequent use of the misleading word
'voluntary' − a word suggesting an option that does not exist.  Research
done by the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces,
which studied this issue in depth in 1992, determined that a
'voluntary' option for women but not for men in close combat simply
would not work.  (See Selected Findings, point #7)


the survey relies on the mistaken belief that tough training standards
preparing men for direct ground combat missions would remain the same as
they are now.  This will not be possible due to well-documented differences in male/female physical capabilities, and because of the administration's intent to impose gender-based 'diversity metrics,' meaning 'quotas,' which will have the effect of driving training standards down. 

"According to recommendations of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, (MLDC)
endorsed by the Defense Department on February 9, 2012, promotions of
officers at all levels, especially 3- and 4-star generals and admirals,
will be contingent on support for gender-based 'diversity metrics.' (See pp. xvii-xviii)

MLDC report admits that this concept is not the same as respect or
recognition for individual merit − the key to success for racial
integration. The 'new diversity' is about demographic group rights, not
individual rights.  (See p. 18)  Tough training standards that men must meet now may end up 'equal,' but they will not remain the same.

CNA survey ‘Quick Look’ summary barely mentions major concerns among
male and female Marines, including sexual assaults, false accusations of
harassment, fraternization and preferential treatment,
privacy/billeting, limited duty affecting readiness, and additional
risks for women targeted for capture.  These vaguely-described concerns
deserve close closer examination by Congress and the American public,
not an incomplete summary that omits details or sweeps them under the

though the survey instrument was flawed, members of Congress should
request complete top-line data, cross-tabs, and detailed Marine
responses broken down by military occupational specialty, combat
community, and experience." 

The Center for Military Readiness has prepared a 42-page Special Report analyzing all phases of the Marine Corps "Assignment of Women to Ground Combat" Research Project, including the CNA survey instrument used in 2012: 

Defense Department "Diversity" Push for Women in Land Combat (See pages 8-11)

More information on training standards is provided in this article:

Seven Reasons Why Women-in-Combat Diversity Will Degrade Tough Training Standards




  1. The object of the administration is the degrading of the US military to the level of the Swiss guards, and achieving ‘equality’ that is neither wanted nor necessary. I find it revealing the the administration’s lead on these ‘talking points’ is an Air Force fighter pilot – got news for you there sweet pea, flying a combat mission then returning to your air conditioned barracks does not equate to humping personal war gear/ammo, crew served weapon parts/ammo, radios, etc that our ground troops are burdened with. I carried a hell of a load in ‘Nam, and it’s not even close to what the Marine Grunt has to carry today.

  2. Look this is all about PC, and getting votes. Its about the democratic
    party trying to insure they get the female vote in the future. Few females
    would sign up for it, and fewer would be able to do the job. We don’t need
    more dead Marines, male or female.

  3. I thought that after the Fort Hood shooting that the promotion dependent on PC correctness was out the window, but wait, to quote the above “will be contingent on support for gender-based ‘diversity metrics”. To be fair, there are many women serving in the combat theater in necessary support roles and are exposed to their share of danger, and there were also a few Women Marines that could have kicked my a** back when, but they were not the bell curve norm but the exception, just as I imagine they would be today.

  4. I understand the importance of civil rights, equality, and all that political rhetoric. But it seems like it would make more sense to test the waters maybe stateside where the stakes are lower if there happens to be an agenda the polls are disclosing. In other words, test, measure, and fix the equality issues in environments where people aren’t getting shot at first, and the rest will take care of itself.

  5. I think that everything published was actually very logical. But, think on this, suppose you added a little content? I mean, I don’t want to tell you how to run your website, however what if you added something to maybe grab folk’s attention? I mean One Marine’s View: Survey of Marines Fails to Show Support for Women in Direct Ground Combat is a little boring. You might glance at Yahoo’s home page and watch how they write news headlines to get people interested. You might try adding a video or a related pic or two to grab people excited about everything’ve written. In my opinion, it would make your posts a little bit more interesting.

  6. I used to be suggested this blog by means of my cousin. I am no longer sure whether or not this post is written by him as nobody else understand such exact about my trouble. You are incredible! Thanks!

Leave a Reply