The EFCP (Evaluation of Female Combat Personnel) Program

[natehale1971]

Hi everyone,

I need a little help writing an article... and i'm having a severe case of writers block/brain fart. Thus I'm asking for all of your help in writing this article for my Twilight 2000 campaign.

The EFCP (Evaluation of Female Combat Personnel) Program:

The Evaluation of Female Combat Personnel Program was the pet project of SEN Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and a coalition of Congresswomen in the House of Representatives that would allow for women to be allowed in the combat arms of the Armed Forces that lasted from 2001-2004. While there were some cases of problems with the Program, it for the most part showed that women could operate in combat positions.

The legislation that was passed that allowed women in combat positions also opened the Draft to women, the debate on this was heated and fell along party lines. But in the end, the entire legislation package was passed with the slogan "Equal Rights, Equal Risks" that was used by both supporters and detractors.

Despite allowing women in combat roles, there were several career fields (such as Infantry) that were not opened to women until the height of the Twilight War forced a change with the growing need for manpower.

[helbent4]

Nate,

An interesting proposition. Also, this kind of program or one like it would serve in the canon timeline, too, as women are obviously accepted into combat roles during the Twilight War in some capacity.

That said, what is the context of the article? That is, is it written as flavour text for your players? Do you have a particular "voice" in mind?

Tony

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Nate,

An interesting proposition. Also, this kind of program or one like it would serve in the canon timeline, too, as women are obviously accepted into combat roles during the Twilight War in some capacity.

That said, what is the context of the article? That is, is it written as flavour text for your players? Do you have a particular "voice" in mind?

Tony

Very much Flavor text... it's to be one of the articles on the Wiki that i've been working on. I am hoping to make it as an informative article with a voice of someone looking on it as neither a good or bad thing. But something that happened that changed American society and culture. Especially with the Draft actually becoming universal across the board. With only health being a way of getting out of the draft... not money and college deferments only work if you're willing to become an officer after graduation.

[helbent4]

Nate,

You could take a "future omnipotent" view, where the hypothetical author is some kind of scholar detailing an important turning point in the US military.

Describe the program, give dates and examples as necessary. For example, "Bobbi Jo" from the yellow book, and Capt. Warren from "Madonna". Maybe relate this to similar changes in other western military forces.

Note any problems. In Canada, female soldiers have been allowed in all combat roles since 1990. The major problem is attracting women to choose and stay in combat roles. Also, sexual harassment is still an issue, although not necessarily at different rates than before gender integration.

To be honest, what you put seems good enough. Add some examples, hypothetical NPCs from your own game, perhaps, and you should be good to go.

Tony

[natehale1971]

Thats what i was thinking of doing.. I don't have the experience to write it though. I've been out of the Navy since 1993, and while i was in... the female personnel i had to work with USED the fact they were women to get what they wanted. and i got to deal with alot of reverse racism and sexism my last year and half in.

I also had to deal with a female that had been assigned to work with me who had caused all kinds of problems in her 2 years in the navy, she was always making sexual harassment complaints to get ahead until she was working with me and another sailor. when he told her she didn't do the job right, she went straight to the commander and accused him of sexual harassment.

the commander called the Command Senior Chief & the first lieutenant (our supervisors), his exec assistant, him and me into the office and started an improvised little captains mass.

He looked at everyone and then at the man she had accused of sexually haraassing her of all the people in the room (two attractive women, me, the senior chief and my co-worker). he looked around and then at me and said "Spake here is my kind of man." to which i answered "I'm very flattered, but I don't swing that way." and he said "I know, you're so painfully straight it hurts."

The commander dismissed all the enlisted except her, and called the Master-at-Arms and NIS agent in. let's just say her court marital was swift and only ended with her being hussled out of the navy and the lives of the men she ruined was attempted to be put back together again.

I was able to write the basic fluff, but i wasn't able to come up with how it would best be described.

everyone on this forum is welcomed to join and help with all the stuff for the game. especially those who want to play in the campaign i'm putting together.

[Abbott Shaull]

Honestly being through Infantry School at Benning in 1988 and then going to Airborne School afterward the attitude of thing had only start change there.

The views were completely different, there were chants Airborne Schools that while using the towers that we had taught us, but we weren't allow to using depending on which Instructors were work and who was working in your team during training.

While at Basic/AIT, they still weren't trying to hard to be PC unless we were in the Barracks or going to the mini-PX. Lord the recruit who didn't hold their tongue while they were in the PX or the Chow line...

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

I was able to write the basic fluff, but i wasn't able to come up with how it would best be described.

everyone on this forum is welcomed to join and help with all the stuff for the game. especially those who want to play in the campaign i'm putting together.

Nate,

Women in the military is obviously an emotionally-charged subject, there are plenty of anecdotes of abuse of the system by women. If I had to guess, I would say that any replacements at that part of the war would be welcome. There will be some problems, although if the program was a success then it should be portrayed as such.

The EFCP (Evaluation of Female Combat Personnel) Program:

The Evaluation of Female Combat Personnel Program was the pet project of SEN Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and a coalition of Congresswomen in the House of Representatives that would allow for women to be allowed in the combat arms of the Armed Forces that lasted from 2001-2004. While there were some cases of problems with the Program, it for the most part showed that women could operate in combat positions.

The legislation that was passed that allowed women in combat positions also opened the Draft to women, the debate on this was heated and fell along party lines. But in the end, the entire legislation package was passed with the slogan "Equal Rights, Equal Risks" that was used by both supporters and detractors.

Despite allowing women in combat roles, there were several career fields (such as Infantry) that were not opened to women until the height of the Twilight War forced a change with the growing need for manpower.

The program was judged an overall success due to the accessibility of a large number of educated and highly-motivated recruits. The introduction of women into combat units in the middle phases of the Twilight War did not greatly affect overall unit cohesion because attrition had made almost any replacements welcome, with the source being judged as unimportant in most circumstances. (Certainly, the EFCP proved far less problematical than the "Moral Waiver" program, which saw the almost wholesale recruitment of former convicted felons, a wide segment of the prison population and suspected urban gang members into military service.)

Tony

[natehale1971]

Tony,

I really liked the fluff you added! Espeically the "Moral Waiver" Program... that sounds like it might make a good article of it's own. Especially if the successes of the program came from non-violent and white collar criminals who jumped at the chance of a 'clean slate' in exchange for serving in the armed forces. Though I think those personnel would find themselves assigned to the logistics and combat support arms instead of the combat arms.

[waiting4something]

I think women being accepted into combat roles is right around the corner in the U.S.A. The Marines have something called female engagement teams that go out on patrols. I guess this evolution is just natural. Like with females becoming police officers. They can do stuff to the bad girls us guys can't.

[Mohoender]

Sorry I might be a little off-topic

Women issues have come up regularly and I realize while I was reading you that in T2K the situation could be very different from one beliigerent to the other.

Women would be rarely accepted into combat position in Western Armies. Not at all in the German Army, I doubt it for UK and France (at the time) but may be more involved in Scandinavian countries (I leave that to our well involved scandinavian friends). A major exception could be Turkey which was the first country to have had a women fighter pilot.

Fully accepted in the IDF, Middle-East could be interesting depending on the country and leader. Libya could accept them but I doubt that it will be the case in most other countries. Polisario and touaregs will fully use them.

Fully accepted among most Warsaw Pact/Eastern European countries (especially Soviet Union) as tank/vehicle crews, pilots, snipers, air defense, partisans, artillery and machinegun crews (much like in WW2).

Probably well involved in chinese/Asian militias.

Just some thoughts

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Not at all in the German Army.

Just some thoughts

Mohender.

You should call the Bundeswehr right now and tell them they can not have women in combat roles like they have been allowing since 2001! I'm sure they will be very embarrassed to find out they've been doing it all wrong. For the purpose of T2K, it's probably close enough to allow in the alternative timeline, especially given Germany's problems, but it's a matter of opinion.

Besides, this is all very much besides the point. This thread is about an article relates specifically about the US Army, which will allow women in combat positions in T2K, whether anyone likes it or not. The attempt is to find a rationale and flesh it out.

Your points are well taken. That said, there is a whole other thread for general opinions about women in combat.

Tony

[Tegyrius]

The Committee on Women in NATO Forces used to publish an annual report on gender integration in each member nation's military. The most recent I could find with a quick Google search (caffeine hasn't taken hold yet) was 2004's:

http://www.nato.int/ims/2004/win/03-index.htm

It looks like that working group may have been replaced by the NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives:

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50327.htm

Yes, I know the thread's specific to American forces, but looking at some of our NATO partners might provide some insight into how such integration would proceed here if sufficient political pressure mandated it.

- C.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Mohender.

You should call the Bundeswehr right now and tell them they can not have women in combat roles like they have been allowing since 2001!

Tony

I was only talking of T2K, at least 10 years before that date. By 1989-1991, few western armies had fully cross the line and in the middle of the war, I doubt that they would cross it (It seems that outside Scandinavia, Canada is a serious exception). If you play v.1, it's even less plausible.

IMO most fighting women would be in that position because they were there to fill in the depleted ranks. You could have had some women in combat at the time of T2K but not that many.

The reason, I have Warsaw Pact or IDF acting the other way is simply because they had done so in the past.

One last thing, about Germany, it seems that they effectively think that it is a bad idea. They indeed allowed women into combat role after 2001 but only after a ruling by the European Court of Justice. Not really a voluntary posture.

And this idea doesn't reflect my opinion on women capabilities.

[Mohoender]

Thanks Tegiryus

Very interesting, didn't know about this.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

And this idea doesn't reflect my opinion on women capabilities.

Mohoender,

Agreed, and please accept my apologies for any sarcasm. It was meant somewhat in jest, but we must be careful about opening any cans of worms, too.

As for Germany, in either the v1 or v2 timeline they started the European phase of the war in 1996 for what are nationalist reasons. It's not hard to see that at that time a similar court judgment could have been handed down a few years early during the time of patriotic fervor, nationalist feeling and the buildup to war.

At any rate, let's not lose focus here on the EFCP:

(Continued.)

The EFCP was successful enough that similar programs were adopted in West Germany/the newly unified FRG (depending on the timeline) and other NATO allies.

The EFCP was not without its problems. The reality of combat in the front lines meant that the program couldn't always be adequately monitored, even when there were resources to do so. Such radical-seeming changes went against centuries of US military tradition and a highly masculine sub-culture, although most objections were overcome in through by simple necessity. Some elements never did accept the change wholeheartedly, and concerns over issues like reverse-discrimination and the lowering of crucial standards could not always be dismissed out of hand. Nevertheless, it can't be ignored that the inclusion of women in universal service (the draft) and on the front lines through the EFCP provided a much-needed boost to critical personnel at a crucial time.

More seriously, it could be argued that the same alteration (some might say lowering) of accepted standards allowed less-desirable elements into the US military. The greater inclusion of women into the military and further into front-line combat collided with the influx of a core hardened criminal element that had been accepted into military service for one reason or another.

It is impossible to determine statistics but it's possible that as many as 20-25% or more of inductees in 1997 and after in the US military had some kind of criminal record, up to and including felony convictions such as theft, violent assault, drug charges, even murder and sexual assault. Gang membership in the military far exceeded that of the general population. The means to conduct extensive background checks on recruits simply no longer existed in most areas, and what capacity to do so was overwhelmed after the adoption of universal compulsory military service.

Further, a considerable portion of the corrections population was conscripted into military service, and not without a certain kind of logic. Namely, there was little means or political will to continue feeding them. Letting criminals fulfill their debt to society by serving in uniform has a long historical precedent. While many acquitted themselves admirably (so to speak), others did not and criminal activity such as drug trafficking, black market activity and arms dealing flourished despite increasingly harsh measures. The relaxation of supervision and eventual breakdown in morale and disciple put the large influx of female conscripts squarely on a collision course with various former and current criminal elements, especially those with a history of violence or sexual assault against women. Interestingly, women serving in combat units through the EFCP experienced lower level of sexual harassment and sexual assault (rape), but few were completely immune.

Eventually, many criminal-soldiers (from almost all nations) put their training and weapons to personal and illegal use, commonly forming the core of the gangs that were called "Marauders" during the Twilight War. In the USA, a few that chose to remain in military service during the latter stages of the war sided with the federal government but many remained chose to back MILGOV for different reasons, mainly due to a lack of loyalty to civil society in general.

Tony

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

As for Germany, in either the v1 or v2 timeline they started the European phase of the war in 1997 for what are nationalist reasons.

Note that in 2.2 Germany crossed the Polish border on the 27th of July 1996.
The remainder of Nato weren't drawn in until approximately late November 1996.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Note that in 2.2 Germany crossed the Polish border on the 27th of July 1996.
The remainder of Nato weren't drawn in until approximately late November 1996.

Leg,

Epic fail!

What's a year more or less, Mr. Smarty-Pants?

Corrected.

Tony

[Legbreaker]

I haven't got 1.0 handy here at work, but I think West Germany moved into East Germany a bit later in 1996 than in 2.x. I've got a feeling it was only a week or so before the US and UK moved (late November).

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by helbent4

The greater inclusion of women into the military and further into front-line combat collided with the influx of a core hardened criminal element that had been accepted into military service for one reason or another.

It is impossible to determine statistics but it's possible that as many as 20-25% or more of inductees in 1997 and after in the US military had some kind of criminal record, up to and including felony convictions such as theft, violent assault, drug charges, even murder and sexual assault. ...

... The relaxation of supervision and eventual breakdown in morale and disciple put the large influx of female conscripts squarely on a collision course with various former and current criminal elements, especially those with a history of violence or sexual assault against women. Interestingly, women serving in combat units through the EFCP experienced lower level of sexual harassment and sexual assault (rape), but few were completely immune.

Just my opinion, but this last sentence sounds really optimistic to me, given the previous statements. I can see higher levels of harassment and assault across the board. Further, I can then see a lot of revenge violence by friends/allies/NCOs against the assaulters. If gangs are involved, the potential for a spiral of violence within units seems staggering. Admittedly, it might stabilize by 2000(2013, whatever your timeline) as the offenders are driven out one way or another, but until then, I think you've got the potential to really rip units apart. (I feel so glad I'm not a company or battalion commander in this environment!)

To drag the real world into this, I think in the last 1-2 years, two soldiers and/or Marines have been convicted of murdering fellow (female) soldiers/Marines. Those were at Stateside bases (one was at Lejeune, but the woman was from near here, so it got local news coverage), I can only imagine what it might look like overseas, with everyone armed and twitchy from combat stress.

Sort of returning to the Program, I remember reading something that said that women, when introduced to a previously-all-male environment, tended to keep quiet or act much like the guys. Until the number of women in the group rose above 3. Then, with some sort of "critical mass," they started to assert themselves more, no longer being alone. I should think an important component of this working might be to try to assign women together as much as possible. Safety in numbers, and all that.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Mohoender,

Agreed, and please accept my apologies for any sarcasm. It was meant somewhat in jest, but we must be careful about opening any cans of worms, too.

As for Germany, in either the v1 or v2 timeline they started the European phase of the war in 1996 for what are nationalist reasons. It's not hard to see that at that time a similar court judgment could have been handed down a few years early during the time of patriotic fervor, nationalist feeling and the buildup to war.

No problem and good point.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Just my opinion, but this last sentence sounds really optimistic to me, given the previous statements. I can see higher levels of harassment and assault across the board. Further, I can then see a lot of revenge violence by friends/allies/NCOs against the assaulters. If gangs are involved, the potential for a spiral of violence within units seems staggering. Admittedly, it might stabilize by 2000(2013, whatever your timeline) as the offenders are driven out one way or another, but until then, I think you've got the potential to really rip units apart. (I feel so glad I'm not a company or battalion commander in this environment!)

Adm.,

Hey, I'm just pulling this out of my ass!

What little I've read about women in the CF in combat roles (armoured recce, infantry, etc.) suggests that sexual assault is far more likely to occur in rear or base areas, or back home in Canada. I would guess the reason is that even with the EFCP, women would be relatively rarest in the front lines. There is simply more opportunity where there are more women. Plus, on the front lines there is less chance for privacy and frankly, you simply have a lot more to worry about than sex! further, if it's true that criminal elements will tend to be kept from the front lines they will be concentrated in the rear areas. Consensual sex, like sexual assault, requires opportunity as well as privacy. Therefore you'd see it happening in the rear areas (no pun intended) as well.

Tony

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by helbent4

further, if it's true that criminal elements will tend to be kept from the front lines they will be concentrated in the rear areas.

Given that, I might agree with you, then. I assumed the "criminal elements" would be posted to the infantry, as that's where the replacements are needed most. And I'm certain more than one officer or NCO saw them as more expendable than anyone else.

OTOH, the idea that women might be "safer" in the front lines might lead to more of them volunteering for that duty, which seems all kinds of weird to me, but if they can stick together, as I mentioned before, that seems to make some kind of sense.

Branching back to the drafted gang-members, I am reminded of something I read about in WWII. I'll look it up, and post more in a bit.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Given that, I might agree with you, then. I assumed the "criminal elements" would be posted to the infantry, as that's where the replacements are needed most. And I'm certain more than one officer or NCO saw them as more expendable than anyone else.

OTOH, the idea that women might be "safer" in the front lines might lead to more of them volunteering for that duty, which seems all kinds of weird to me, but if they can stick together, as I mentioned before, that seems to make some kind of sense.

Branching back to the drafted gang-members, I am reminded of something I read about in WWII. I'll look it up, and post more in a bit.

Adm.,

Probably there should be a clearer caveat. There would likely be some serious incidents of sexual assault, intimidation and discrimination as order and disciple breaks down. This would involve individuals or even groups, with possible subsequent retaliation. Not enough to derail the program (too much need for warm bodies at the sharp end) but enough to show there would be friction. Especially where there are bad characters with not enough supervision.

Criminals in uniform have always been a problem, of course. With the numbers of Americans that are in or have been through the corrections system, it's not hard to see why exceptions seem natural. I don't think we'd see "penal battalions" because it's foreign to our culture but the idea has some allure. I'm not surprised there was a definite criminal element present in WWII, with conscription the bad would be swept in with the good.

FBI gang investigator Jennifer Simon said in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes this week [in Dec. 2006] that gang members have been documented on or near U.S. military bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Iraq.

"It's no secret that gang members are prevalent in the armed forces, including internationally," Simon said, adding that the FBI is preparing to release a report on gangs in the military.

There are no official statistics on gang membership in the military, but some experts have estimated that 1 percent to 2 percent of the U.S. military are gang members, Simon said. That compares with just 0.02 percent of the U.S. population believed to be gang members, she wrote.

"Gang membership in the U.S. armed forces is disproportional to the U.S. population," she added.

http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com...n-problem.html

An article in the NYT in 2008 put the number of recruits allowed to enlist through moral waivers for a criminal record at 1 in 10, some sources put it higher at 1 in 8. Mind you, these are just the recruits and not the US military as a whole, so proportionally the numbers are going to be lower overall. But still high, and likely to get higher as standards are lowered and conscription becomes universal.

Tony

[pmulcahy11b]

As far as drafting/recruiting gang members:

For sure, there are some where the military is about training with weapons and tactics and bringing them back to their homies, while developing some contacts for their criminal activities such as drugs worldwide.

But there are some for whom the military represents the way out of poverty and the gangs that they are so desperately looking for. Yes, there may be some personality issues to deal with due to their upbringing, and they may have some ugly artwork on their bodies (tattoo removal for them should be fully funded and encouraged), but for some gang members, the military is a way out of the crappy lives they are living. There may not be as many problems with them as one might think.

Of course, with a draft, you'll get more bad apples.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

But there are some for whom the military represents the way out of poverty and the gangs that they are so desperately looking for. Yes, there may be some personality issues to deal with due to their upbringing, and they may have some ugly artwork on their bodies (tattoo removal for them should be fully funded and encouraged), but for some gang members, the military is a way out of the crappy lives they are living. There may not be as many problems with them as one might think.

Paul,

That's a good point and something I considered. Not all gang members are completely in the "thug life" that they can't be set straight, some just didn't have a real choice in life. So of course, not all can be tarred with the same brush!

I think part of why "rehab via military" works is that gang members and other criminals are given opportunities they didn't have before, and (more importantly) are removed from their old lives and separated from old "bad" friends. Presumably, the gang-bangers who are currently allowed to enlist don't have serious drug or violent crime charges, aren't alcoholics or drug addtics, etc. Problems will happen when the "bad apples" grow in proportion, and they can remind and reinforce the thug life mentality. Plus, conscripts will have less invested in their future and the opportunities the military allows, thus less reason to change and buy into the program.

Tony

[natehale1971]

Actually i've got a good use for 'Penal Battalions'...

Helping with labor intensive jobs. be it disaster cleanup, fire-fighting, and helping with farming. These three things are JUST three that we have convict labor being used for here in the US today.

the use of "Penal Battalions" in the Army would be to assign them to Combat Engineers and other Rear Areas (under the watchful eyes of Military Police & the Corps of Engineers) for the construction of fortifications and cantonments, with helping in the recovery efforts and the like. The only downside to this overseas, would be the bad PR if some of these criminal element falls back to their old ways and starts raping and killing the people we're trying to help. But that can be said of regular troopers as well (as we saw with Belgium's peacekeepers to a UN Mission to Africa).

Which brings me to this point... What would such a program be called? we already have a name for women in combat, but wwhat of the penal battalions? what would politicians call something like that?

[dragoon500ly]

[QUOTE=helbent4;28603]What little I've read about women in the CF in combat roles (armoured recce, infantry, etc.) suggests that sexual assault is far more likely to occur in rear or base areas, or back home in Canada. I would guess the reason is that even with the EFCP, women would be relatively rarest in the front lines. There is simply more opportunity where there are more women. Plus, on the front lines there is less chance for privacy and frankly, you simply have a lot more to worry about than sex! further, if it's true that criminal elements will tend to be kept from the front lines they will be concentrated in the rear areas. Consensual sex, like sexual assault, requires opportunity as well as privacy. Therefore you'd see it happening in the rear areas (no pun intended) as well. [QUOTE]

Don't know about the consensual sex if a woman was assigned to a tank crew. We are rather known for that appealing mix of used propellent, diesel, sweat and that special "eau de assault on de senses" that comes when you drop four people in an armored box and seal the hatches....

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

We are rather known for that appealing mix of used propellent, diesel, sweat and that special "eau de assault on de senses" that comes when you drop four people in an armored box and seal the hatches....

Minty fresh! :P

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Minty fresh! :P

Not to mention the lack of shaving of certain areas that occurs in the field...yuck...

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by helbent4

What little I've read about women in the CF in combat roles (armoured recce, infantry, etc.) suggests that sexual assault is far more likely to occur in rear or base areas, or back home in Canada.

Correct. Another reason for that is any form of a romantic/physical/sexual (or whatever you want to call it) relationship is strictly forbidden while on operations. This even extends to legally married couples jointly deployed. So there's an added obstacle that makes it more difficult to initiate such a basic relationship - let alone a abusive one.