In January 2016, I finished my tenure with the Marine Corps Force Innovation Office (MCFIO). The office was charged with conducting research, asking questions, synthesizing the conclusions and eventually making policy about women in the ground combat arms.

It was the most difficult tour of my entire Marine Corps career – not Iraq or Afghanistan, not even The Basic School (TBS) could compare.

It was worth it. A recent trip to the Marine Corps Archives in Quantico, Virginia made me proud and happy.

When I departed MCFIO, I had received permission to submit all historical documents to the Archives. I felt it was important that this period of history not go unnoticed, and wanted to ensure as complete a collection of official documents as possible for future researchers.

In a very short time, it had become the most requested collection in the Archive. Wow.

They are mostly students of Command and Staff College, which is even better. These are the individuals the Marine Corps is training and educating to take leadership positions in the Corps.

But I believe there is more to share, and to be understood. During my time at MCFIO, I struggled to understand the strong feelings surrounding the issue of women in ground combat. I also struggled with those who wondered why women would want to be in the infantry at all. I feel CMC Lou Wilson captured it perfectly, 40 years earlier:

“They (women) have spirit and enthusiasm which is as great as any I have observed during my years of service in the Corps . . . I admire and respect that spirit in our women Marines, yet find it hard to perceive, sometimes, why women raise the issue of combat roles. There is certainly nothing magical or attractive about fighting. It’s hard, dirty, unpleasant work. But I believe that women don’t want to fight any more than our men. They merely ask for the opportunity to share the full burden of defense, should the need arise.”

CMC Wilson, speaking to the Women Marines Association Convention in August 1976

Stiff resistance remained my daily experience. Every day felt like a fight just to be heard. As time passed, I felt I understood the apprehensions and hesitations better. Another commandant said it far better than I ever could, so I share it here, as I believe it still applies today:

“I think women are super and . . . I think they can do anything a man can do–almost. The question is: Do we want them to in each and every instance? They are superior performers, out-perform the males in many areas . . . but I also believe that to . . . get women too close to the men in combat under fire presents a threat greater than the threat to the woman in being exposed to enemy fire. It’s the threat to the male ego. Now, this is a thing that’s fragile and not very precise . . . fundamentally deep in his psyche‑-he believes he’s the kind of protector of the weak, the women, etc. But if you put a woman in that equation, you’re not enlarging on his motivation to protect, which some might argue, because she’s, in fact, right there and not back home, distant protection you’re giving her. She has taken over a role that has been really his role. It’s tantamount to saying, ‘I’m a male, too, in female dress.’ And his motivation, his ego is trampled on. The greatest trampling of the male ego that could ever take place would be to put women up there doing what he has heretofore felt was in his province.”

CMC Robert Barrow, Session 10 of his retirement interview with Marine Corps History Division

General Barrow addressed one additional perspective, which consistently came up in this most recent debate:

“We are not in the business of trying to see how we can broaden the opportunities for women simply because that seems to be the philosophy in general in government, that there’s no limit to what women can do . . . It had more to do with affirmative action, equal opportunity, whatever one chooses to call it, than it had to do with military need.”

CMC Barrow, Session 15 of his retirement interview with Marine Corps History Division

Many individuals in the current debate also view this as a political decision, an equal rights discussion, and that the policy makers and politicians fail to understand the implications to combat effectiveness.

Yet, the Marine Corps supplied a mere four page memo to the media when it concluded its research. Tens of thousands of pages, two years and millions of dollars of insights, data and analysis – boiled down to four pages. We learned so much more. For this reason, I write the below as a (very) quick summary of the research and all the hard work put in by so many people.

During the incredibly short eighteen months between the office’s inception (December 2013) and its report to CMC (August 2015), we learned so much about women, men and the Marine Corps. Our office scoured the existing gender integration research, and created many new projects – specifically for the Marine Corps.

We strove to understand the physical implications of gender integration; we strove to understand implications for cohesion and morale; we strove to understand who these women were who would want to join this all-male club and how long they might stay in their MOS or in the Marine Corps. We strove to understand the physical and financial costs at all levels of the institution. We asked many questions, had innumerable discussions, talked about pull-ups more times than I’d like to recall and in every way covered every topic about women in the GCE in every way I think possible.

Research outside the Marine Corps included independent studies from a variety of organizations. A RAND study looked at the international experience of women in the infantry, an analysis of cohesion and its impact on group effectiveness and potential costs of gender integration. Studies by the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), a University of Pittsburgh physiological study on the GCEITF participants and a Naval Health Research Center (NHRC) behavior assessment study rounded out the focus on the GCEITF volunteers. We commissioned the Michigan State University to conduct a decision-making study, running enlisted Marines through a leadership reaction course-type obstacle course to understand better how men and women worked together.

Research inside the Marine Corps included the famous Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, or GCEITF, led by Marine Corps Operational and Test Activity (MCOTEA). It also included the MOS-producing school studies sponsored by Training and Education Command (TECOM). These focused on women at the Infantry Officer’s Course (IOC), the School of Infantry (SOI), artillery school, tanks school and AAV school.

Within Operations Analysis Division (OAD):

– We looked at the history of the other most physically-demanding MOS then open to women – Combat Engineers – and examined women’s participation and success rates in that MOS;

– OAD also presented a deployability study, focusing on the effects of injuries and pregnancy on deployment rates (because we are obsessed with pregnancy – more on that in a later post);

– OAD completed studies on OCS and TBS to understand success, injuries, academics, leadership and how to predict who would complete a career, who would depart the Marine Corps, and why;

– OAD coordinated a review of Marines’ experiences as women (officers and SNCOs) entered the ground combat element (GCE) at the battalion level for the first time.

Here we found actions towards some women, and opinions, that clearly demonstrated a lack of respect for women in leadership positions. We also found officers and commanders completely supportive of women, impressed with their competence and example to all Marines in the battalion.

We commissioned two different studies to look at potential material and equipment adaptations for women, to include pack fit and vehicle adaptations.

We pulled all the data on Combat Action Ribbons (CARs) awarded to women in Iraq and Afghanistan to understand how women conducted themselves in combat – what were the circumstances? How did they perform? How did the men relate to them?

We visited the United Kingdom, Israel, Canada and Australia to understand their respective experiences with women in combat. Each country offered a startlingly different perspective, due to culture, manpower needs and beliefs about equality in the workforce. We spoke with the women there, officer and enlisted, who told us that they just wanted to be equal members of the team, that they wanted to be held to the same standards (and offered the same level of respect), that they had to do the same things as the men to gain that same respect, and that the women who couldn’t make it should go (just as any man who couldn’t make it should go). They impressed us with their determination, strength and dedication.

Women have been one of the most studied topics in the Marine Corps. We have spent more time talking about pregnancy, physical abilities and cohesion and morale than any other topic I have found. If you are looking for information about something, it has probably been studied several times over the past 40 years. Let’s take advantage of that.

Over the course of this blog series, we’ll examine this research in detail. We’ll also talk to some of the women and men involved – the volunteers, the instructors, the staff. We’ll get the full story of what actually happened, what we learned, what’s happened since the ground combat arms opened to women, and implications for the future.

Like General Wilson said, I am one of the women who simply want an opportunity “to share the full burden of defense, should the need arise”. Being a Marine has been the proudest accomplishment of my life. I work here to make better this great institution of ours. I hope many more – Marines and civilians alike – head to the Archives to uncover this treasure trove of information. For a full listing of all studies commissioned and referenced, please check out the links below. Semper Fidelis,