FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women

[sacase]

Great!

What do you think? Because we're women you have to watch what you say and walk on eggshells? We're not little girls ya know.

Yeah you have to watch what you say, if you say something off color or offensive and they file an EO complaint you are done. So yes you have to speak with a filter around them.

Have a 10 pound baby with no pain med's and get back to me mmmkay!

what does having a 10lb baby have to do humping a 100lb ruck? Not about pain tolerance it is about physical strength. In basic I had a female in my basic training platoon who was in good shape. She was always complaining about women not being allowed in combat. My drill sergeant gave her his ruck...she didn't make it a quarter mile. Women do not have the upperbody strength that men do. I still have most of my gear from the Army, I would be more than happy to set it up for you and see if you can complete a 12 mile road mach with my Ruck and LCE.

And this has what to do with anything?

See popeman's response.

Again get back to me on this one.

Once again you don't have the upper body strength. If I get shot can you pull 220lbs of dead weight out of the line of fire? Can you fireman's carry a 220lb soldier under fire? Can you hump a 100lb ruck and carry a 20lb M249? How about the radio?

And again, what exactly is your point?

that is the term we used for female soldier, not women or girls.

The funny thing about this is you don't hear women in the military complaining about this, it is the women who are not in the military that are the ones complaining.

[Predicto]

I'll wait and see whether this involves "allowing women to try for some or most combat roles" rather than "forces unqualified women into every single combat situation regardless of the needs of the mission" before I decide what to think about it.

Some of our posters appear to be assuming the latter, but I'm doubting that is what is really going on. :whoknows:

[sacase]

But what if they lower the unified PT standards?

That would be the worst case for all involved.

[Elessar78]

Im not sure my thoughts right now. But how to places like Isreal do it? They are always at war, they are in the field all the time, and females are in combat roles. What do they do?

I believe the mindset is that it is their country as much as the men. And their surrounded by enemies that outnumber them 4 to 1(?)—they need all hands on deck. Israel spends the most on it's military per capita in the world.

[endzone_dave]

When I was a combat engineer, 6 of us guys had to carry a 600 pound bridge piece and 8 of us had to carry an 800 pound bridge piece. I'm not saying there arn'te women out there who could handle that but the average woman couldn't. Maybe bridge pieces are lighter now, who knows.

[Elessar78]

It's probably still the same, ED, but it's just a matter of equal opportunity. In the end, political correctness will cost some lives—THAT seems shallow to me.

[twa]

[/color]also - curious - If women can now serve in all roles of the armed forces, does that mean we should look at selective services and possibly require women to registrar as well? (I always thought as soon as women had to registrar for a draft, it ensures the draft will never come back unless the US is directly attacked. I can just never see Americans being ok with mothers and sisters being shipped to war against their will).

they certainly should be.

the draft will never be used again w/o a world war, if then

[renaissance]

I'll wait and see whether this involves "allowing women to try for some or most combat roles" rather than "forces unqualified women into every single combat situation regardless of the needs of the mission" before I decide what to think about it.

Some of our posters appear to be assuming the latter, but I'm doubting that is what is really going on. :whoknows:

That is the sense I have as well.

I'm most familiar with the Coast Guard so I will give an example from them. In the CG women can choose any job (though some billets are off limits due to berthing requirements). AST (rescue swimmer) is the most physically demanding job there is. Few people get to the school and many wash out either BC the fail, give up, or get injured and don't go back later. I believe the have only ever been a handful of women to make it through AST A School and they did it at the exact same standards as the men.

What some people don't seem to understand is that simply opening up opportunities is not the same as gifting a job to someone. I am sure that the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force are perfectly capable of determining how to train men and women to serve in combat roles, and determining the situations in which serving side by side is absolutely not safe.

[Forehead]

Brandy, I'm not sure what you're getting at about the birth thing, ignoring for the moment that 10 pounds isn't even close to the average birth weight. I was next to my wife for both her deliveries, and I respect the hell out of her for going through it. Doesn't mean she could go run a half marathon with me...in fact, I don't think she can even run a mile. And she sure as hell isn't as strong. Giving birth doesn't mean squat in this case.

[Jumbo]

That is the sense I have as well.

I'm most familiar with the Coast Guard so I will give an example from them. In the CG women can choose any job (though some billets are off limits due to berthing requirements). AST (rescue swimmer) is the most physically demanding job there is. Few people get to the school and many wash out either BC the fail, give up, or get injured and don't go back later. I believe the have only ever been a handful of women to make it through AST A School and they did it at the exact same standards as the men.

What some people don't seem to understand is that simply opening up opportunities is not the same as gifting a job to someone. I am sure that the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force are perfectly capable of determining how to train men and women to serve in combat roles, and determining the situations in which serving side by side is absolutely not safe.

I'm sorry, ren. That doesn't meet our basic "respond to the topic like a reflexive limbic-driven dumbass" metric for deployment in the tailgate.

You may not like this, but the truth is I have noted the women here have much greater difficulty meeting that standard than the men. Deal with it.

:evilg: :pfft:

[wpns3/5]

deleted post

[brandymac27]

Yeah you have to watch what you say, if you say something off color or offensive and they file an EO complaint you are done. So yes you have to speak with a filter around them.

what does having a 10lb baby have to do humping a 100lb ruck? Not about pain tolerance it is about physical strength. In basic I had a female in my basic training platoon who was in good shape. She was always complaining about women not being allowed in combat. My drill sergeant gave her his ruck...she didn't make it a quarter mile. Women do not have the upperbody strength that men do. I still have most of my gear from the Army, I would be more than happy to set it up for you and see if you can complete a 12 mile road mach with my Ruck and LCE.

See popeman's response.

Once again you don't have the upper body strength. If I get shot can you pull 220lbs of dead weight out of the line of fire? Can you fireman's carry a 220lb soldier under fire? Can you hump a 100lb ruck and carry a 20lb M249? How about the radio?

that is the term we used for female soldier, not women or girls.

The funny thing about this is you don't hear women in the military complaining about this, it is the women who are not in the military that are the ones complaining.

What I'm saying is that there are many things women could do, even in combat, that some men would automatically discount. I brought up the baby issue b/c believe it or not, a lot of strenuous labor (not just giving birth btw) and pain tolerance is mind over matter. When your adrenaline is rushing a million miles a minute, you'd be surprised what the average woman can do. Not to mention, if men would have such an issue with this, why can't there be women combat units (no men, just women)? No offense, but if I'm under fire, I guarantee you a woman would shoot a mofo as quick as a man would.

I do understand what your getting at with the lugging around 200 pounds, but if there are women only platoons, maybe it wouldn't be as difficult as if the women were thrown in with the men? My issue isn't so much about the fact that women should HAVE to be right beside the men, just that they should be able to have the opportunity if that's what they want. Like I said, I'd be ok with men and women being totally separate.

Brandy, I'm not sure what you're getting at about the birth thing, ignoring for the moment that 10 pounds isn't even close to the average birth weight. I was next to my wife for both her deliveries, and I respect the hell out of her for going through it. Doesn't mean she could go run a half marathon with me...in fact, I don't think she can even run a mile. And she sure as hell isn't as strong. Giving birth doesn't mean squat in this case.

No it's not the average. It's what happened to me LOL! With Both my kids! 15 hours of labor w/ no pain med's with my daughter, and she was a whopper. My son was big too, but I got drugs with him lol. I'm just saying there are things women can do in combat. I wonder if men are more afraid to let women actually do this? Like the protective instinct in men kicks in and they assume it's not proper???

[sacase]

What I'm saying is that there are many things women could do, even in combat, that some men would automatically discount. I brought up the baby issue b/c believe it or not, a lot of strenuous labor (not just giving birth btw) and pain tolerance is mind over matter. When your adrenaline is rushing a million miles a minute, you'd be surprised what the average woman can do. Not to mention, if men would have such an issue with this, why can't there be women combat units (no men, just women)? No offense, but if I'm under fire, I guarantee you a woman would shoot a mofo as quick as a man would.

I do understand what your getting at with the lugging around 200 pounds, but if there are women only platoons, maybe it wouldn't be as difficult as if the women were thrown in with the men? My issue isn't so much about the fact that women should HAVE to be right beside the men, just that they should be able to have the opportunity if that's what they want. Like I said, I'd be ok with men and women being totally separate.

No it's not the average. It's what happened to me LOL! With Both my kids! 15 hours of labor w/ no pain med's with my daughter, and she was a whopper. My son was big too, but I got drugs with him lol. I'm just saying there are things women can do in combat. I wonder if men are more afraid to let women actually do this? Like the protective instinct in men kicks in and they assume it's not proper???

I see what you are getting at, but gear is gear, it doesn't change if you are a man or a woman. A M249 weighs 22lbs loaded. That doesn't change. Tasks that are accomplished in combat don't change. Women will pull the trigger the same as a man will, but what happens if she gets into CQB with a male opponent? I think the thing people lose sight on is the military's job is to win in combat not provide an equal opportunity feel good environment for everyone. If someone doesn't do their job or is physically not able to people die. What if a female is a loader for artillery? How long before she tired out loading 25lb artillery shells? I have served with many female soldiers, many of them better than their male counterparts, but when it comes to line units where physical strength and endurance matter. I just don't think they belong.

[Jumbo]

I have served with many female soldiers, many of them better than their male counterparts, but when it comes to line units where physical strength and endurance matter. I just don't think they belong.

sac, I think you're an intelligent and experienced guy, and would you not think that there are some still-restricted-role situations, even in line unit operations, where a properly trained and appropriately capable woman would be up to the task? Even allowing for such being the more "cream of the crop" of that group for that role?

[Renegade7]

They have two years to come up with a list where each branch you simply cannot have women in said position (or it would hurt more then help). I agree with the need for equal physical requirements and women having to sign up for SS with this move. If you want to be treated equally, you have to meet the same damn standards then, this is national security we are talking about.

I support this for sorta the same reason I supported gays being allowed in, if your willing to put your life on the line for my freedom, there's a certain level of respect that is earned with that. Besides, its not like they're going to be putting Jessica Simpson on the ground in Afghanistan. I imagine a good number of the first infantry women are going to be rather, um, masculine, if you catch my drift...

[Redskins Diehard]

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. And whether or not it goes more the way of "allow women to be unrestricted in their MOS" or "place no restrictions on MOS that women can choose". For example....in a light infantry unit, the so called "line unit" you can find multiple MOS's(military occupational specialty) all in that unit. Not everyone is an infantryman. You have cooks, radio operators, personnel clerks, intelligence analysts, etc...these are known as "low density MOS" by some("soft skilled" by others). Currently those low density MOS are open to women...they just can not be assigned to a light infantry unit(at the battalion or below level). So you can have a female radio operator assigned to an infantry brigade but not an infantry battalion. You can have a female personnel clerk assigned to an aviation battalion but not an infantry battalion. You can not find a female infantryman anywhere.

The nature of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq pretty much broke down the barrier of having all of the female soldiers off of the front line...there was no front line. What I would predict happening is that some of the conventional units will eliminate the restriction. The female radio operator at brigade will be able to be assigned at the battalion level. The female personnel clerk assigned to the aviation battalion could be assigned to an armor battalion. I suspect the restrictions on some MOS's will be loosened. I do not foresee the combat arms MOS(infantry, artillery, armor, etc) changing much in the short term.

[Renegade7]

^ saw interview on CBS early show with a former general saying same thing about there not being front line in Iraq or Afghanistan, but women still dying in combat. Regardless of their "position", you have women fighting and dying in these wars, and what he was saying is that this is just as much about recognition as it is a realisation of current reality.

I'm not military, but there are more then enough people that won't fight for anything. If someone is willing to fight and die for my freedom, I'm really going to need a damn good reason to tell them no.

[TradeTheBeal!]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/pregnant-military-unplanned-women_n_2534873.html

"Unplanned" pregnancies in the military at twice the rate of the GP and rising.

[twa]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/pregnant-military-unplanned-women_n_2534873.html

"Unplanned" pregnancies in the military at twice the rate of the GP and rising.

Is that a argument against free birth control effectiveness?

Are they comparing the same demographics?(link to study cited didn't work)

[sjinhan]

Just read this from an actual female marine that has served in combat. I think this is a must read for anyone that is going to engage in this conversation. She is just one person and everyone body responses differently but from her first hand expereince, she does not believe women belong on the front lines.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal?page=5

kind of long but here is an portion that I found more interesting.

As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.

There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?

[EBoz]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/pregnant-military-unplanned-women_n_2534873.html

"Unplanned" pregnancies in the military at twice the rate of the GP and rising.

I'm retired Air Force and I have never been in a combat situation but I did work with females while in the Air Force. I was an aircraft mechanic and there were a lot of hazardous things we dealt with on a daily basis. The biggest hazard to pregnant women was the chemicals we worked with. When a female became pregnant she was immediately removed from all activities associated with aircraft maintenance and reassigned to an office job for the duration of her pregnancy.

As I said earlier I have never served in a combat unit but I would think that a combat unit would be a tight knit group where each member has a particular responsibility. What happens when the female from the said group get pregnant and has to leave the unit for a year? I mean how easy is it to fill her position while she is out?

[DC9]

As a current Soldier and former member of the 75th Ranger Regiment, I will say a couple of things (related to women in Special Ops units, and this is just my opinion):

1) I don't care if women are allowed to go through RASP or Ranger School. I don't, if they can meet all of the requirements, ****ing A... get in there, get your ****, and lets deploy and kill bad guys.

2) The men will be okay. For everyone saying that they are worried about the men in these units, they'll be okay. Trust me. There are studs and duds that make it through any selection course. Just because they make it into a specialized unit, doesn't mean that they are going to be on specialized teams within that unit unless they earn it. Getting in is one thing, being allowed to perform and at what level you are allowed to perform is up to you. It's highly competitive and if a women can make it through the multiple selections and training prior to deployments, I'll take her with me.

3) All of this said, I've been in almost 10 years, served with quite a few women, and I know two that would probably make it through most of the stuff I've had to. This isn't a shot at women, it's more of a reverement (if that's a word) to the standards and what's required of you. My RIP class started with 200 something guys when I went through years ago. All-American Football players, All-state high school atheletes, farm boys, city kids, you name it, they were there. 64 graduated. I still talk to all of them on a regular basis (that are still with us). As Popeman and others have said... it's a bond. You go through hell together, you can typically pick up a conversation with someone like that (even if you haven't talked in years) like you just saw them yesterday. If you put a woman in that position and she makes it through, most of these guys are mature enough to get over it and treat her as a member of the team. But to the point of this number... 140 studs/males didn't make it through.

4) If I was a woman, I would make damn sure that I understood what potentially (and likely) WILL happen to my body as a result of this. I have bad hips from carrying 150lbs of gear and bad knees from jumping out of airplanes with said 150lbs of gear (plus another 60 for my main parachute and 40 for my reserve) that will only get worse as I get older. I am only 29 years old and I have to wear a brace on one knee when I workout and regularly stretch my hip flexors for 20 minutes each day. But I wouldn't trade it for the world. I am the man I am today because of what I went through and who I served with, women included.

Bottom line, if they are willing to do the same, they should be allowed the opportunity. Just know going in, it's definitely not like the movies.

[Popeman38]

As a current Soldier and former member of the 75th Ranger Regiment, I will say a couple of things (related to women in Special Ops units, and this is just my opinion):

1) I don't care if women are allowed to go through RASP or Ranger School. I don't, if they can meet all of the requirements, ****ing A... get in there, get your ****, and lets deploy and kill bad guys.

2) The men will be okay. For everyone saying that they are worried about the men in these units, they'll be okay. Trust me. There are studs and duds that make it through any selection course. Just because they make it into a specialized unit, doesn't mean that they are going to be on specialized teams within that unit unless they earn it. Getting in is one thing, being allowed to perform and at what level you are allowed to perform is up to you. It's highly competitive and if a women can make it through the multiple selections and training prior to deployments, I'll take her with me.

3) All of this said, I've been in almost 10 years, served with quite a few women, and I know two that would probably make it through most of the stuff I've had to. This isn't a shot at women, it's more of a reverement (if that's a word) to the standards and what's required of you. My RIP class started with 200 something guys when I went through years ago. All-American Football players, All-state high school atheletes, farm boys, city kids, you name it, they were there. 64 graduated. I still talk to all of them on a regular basis (that are still with us). As Popeman and others have said... it's a bond. You go through hell together, you can typically pick up a conversation with someone like that (even if you haven't talked in years) like you just saw them yesterday. If you put a woman in that position and she makes it through, most of these guys are mature enough to get over it and treat her as a member of the team. But to the point of this number... 140 studs/males didn't make it through.

4) If I was a woman, I would make damn sure that I understood what potentially (and likely) WILL happen to my body as a result of this. I have bad hips from carrying 150lbs of gear and bad knees from jumping out of airplanes with said 150lbs of gear (plus another 60 for my main parachute and 40 for my reserve) that will only get worse as I get older. I am only 29 years old and I have to wear a brace on one knee when I workout and regularly stretch my hip flexors for 20 minutes each day. But I wouldn't trade it for the world. I am the man I am today because of what I went through and who I served with, women included.

Bottom line, if they are willing to do the same, they should be allowed the opportunity. Just know going in, it's definitely not like the movies.

If your knees and hips hurt now, wait a few years. At 35, any physical activity requires about 20 minutes of light warm ups just fort the knees. And you are going to be sore for days after basic sports. Play soccer on Sunday, you might be ready to jog again by Tuesday and play again the next Sunday. I think, BY FAR, the worst is jumping. It ain't the jump that hurts, it's the impact of landing. All that cushioning you had when you joined? Gone. Basically bone on bone, and it gets worse every year.

[DC9]

If your knees and hips hurt now, wait a few years. At 35, any physical activity requires about 20 minutes of light warm ups just fort the knees. And you are going to be sore for days after basic sports. Play soccer on Sunday, you might be ready to jog again by Tuesday and play again the next Sunday. I think, BY FAR, the worst is jumping. It ain't the jump that hurts, it's the impact of landing. All that cushioning you had when you joined? Gone. Basically bone on bone, and it gets worse every year.

I'm definitely noticing that man. I used to run my two miles in the high 11 mins/ low 12 mins range... now I treat myself when I am in the high 13 min / low 14 min range, lol! I am trying to approach it with a sense of humor, but you are right, my recover time sucks and I have to push myself very hard to score in the 280's on a PT test. My best years physically are certainly behind me. I'll have to make up for it with my quick wit and boyish charm, . It started off slowly, and then it dropped off a cliff around the time I turned 27. 7 years of that kind of stuff, and heck, some guys do it for 20 plus! Much respect to them. But I definitely enjoy my job these days where it's more of a mental thing.

EDIT:

But that's one thing I talked to my wife about last night. Based on his early years, my son seems less interested in following his old man (which I am not upset about at all), but if my daughter wanted to go in and got a hair in her ass to try and one up me (which is entirely possible based on her personality, lol) and wanted to do some hard core ****, I would support her, but I would sit her down and show her my feet, my toes, let her listen to my knees, my hips and lower back as they crack, and tell her a story or two about what to expect in training and combat. Then, with her, I may need to talk to her about whether or not she wants kids. If it's something she is interested in, I would open every door I could for her, but I will ensure she knows that she will destroy her body. And I'm a big dude at 5'11 and 200lbs. I typically go between 8% and 12% body fat depending on whether or not I have my winter coat on, too. It happens to the best of us.

[Popeman38]

I'm definitely noticing that man. I used to run my two miles in the high 11 mins/ low 12 mins range... now I treat myself when I am in the high 13 min / low 14 min range, lol! I am trying to approach it with a sense of humor, but you are right, my recover time sucks and I have to push myself very hard to score in the 280's on a PT test. My best years physically are certainly behind me. I'll have to make up for it with my quick wit and boyish charm, . It started off slowly, and then it dropped off a cliff around the time I turned 27. 7 years of that kind of stuff, and heck, some guys do it for 20 plus! Much respect to them. But I definitely enjoy my job these days where it's more of a mental thing.

I did 8 years, but 2 of them were at the end in a cush strategic job with little physical requirements. Those 2 years killed me. I was in for 20 until I PCS'ed away from Ft Drum. Worst decision I ever made. I would be 5 years from retirement right now. Course, I wouldn't have Skins tix and there is a chance (albeit small) I would be in the ground right now from all the rotations Drum did in Iraq and Afghanistan.