I agree, as long as they are held to the same standards.

Any soldier needs to be strong enough to carry/drag any other soldier out of harms way in a combat situation. No lowering standards because women aren't built the same as men.

Guess they better line up some smaller size body bags. Yea, its a crappy thing to say, but if you are going to put women in combat you better have the sand to accept the consequences.

Thank you Sarah.

If men can't control themselves around women, then it speaks poorly of the men, not the women. Women should not be barred from doing things they are qualified to do simply because men can't keep it in their pants.

That's a horrible excuse and it demeans men.

the standards for women are already lower, so how is that supposed to work. I agree that women who meet new equal standards should get in but these things have to happen.

1.) physical testing requirements are the same for everyone.
2.) there should not be separate facilities
3.) any references and regulation regarding gender, thus any potential lawsuits must be stricken.
4.) Any and all media reports must treat everyone the same, no references, stories, spotlights etc.. on women.
5.) Pregnancies are NOT allowed if the unit is in a deployment window, and if the soldier does get pregnant and is unable to deploy they are then discharged from the army honorably if it is warranted.
6.) Force women to enroll in the selected service

ladolcevita1

it's human nature and the truth it is not demeaning, we are weak creatures you need to read more

Larry,

YOU might be a weak creature. And YOU should not be in combat than. The men I know who serve are more than capable of keeping their flies zipped. In fact, MOST men I know are more than capable of that.

That's all well and good, but so far no woman has passed the physical tests for it. A few tried last year as a test and failed.

Good luck to any trying it.

Guess they better line up some smaller size body bags. Yea, its a crappy thing to say, but if you are going to put women in combat you better have the sand to accept the consequences.

Women ALREADY are dying as a result of enemy action.

Larry... screw that bs. Men aren't weaker. If men think that they have to succumb to the temptation to rape simply because they are around women, the problem is with their brains, not with 'weakness.'

I work around men. I was the sole female in a lot of my engineering classes. I was never raped once. Women are already doing tasks that place them on the front line. Plenty of women have been killed in action, plenty have shot the enemy.

This is not a first in the history of humankind. Plenty of cultures have traditions about women warriors. Joan of Arc fought disguised as a man. The mythical Amazons were women. There are plenty of clandestine agents who are female.

Imagine how America will react when the first of the female soldiers in combat is captured then tortured.

My cousin's wife was in Iraq and got shot at, and she wants to go back because the money is so good!

This is a very poor decision driven by politics rather than a real practical evaluation of the issue. Panetta waited until he was ready to depart to make this decision so that he could score the political points of doing so without having to deal with the real world ramifications of the decision. Women simply are not cut out to be in combat roles. There are very few women who would be capable of dragging a typical male soldier in full combat gear to safety if they are injured. This decision will not only result in women getting killed, it is going to up the body count for the men as well. There will be male soldiers who will die because some female was incapable of getting them to safety after they get hit. There are also medical reasons why women should not be in combat. Men in combat can go for several days at a time without access to an kind of facilities, and definitely not running water to clean up. Women have certain hygiene needs that simply are not compatible with being stuck in the same clothes with no ability to wash up for days at a time. A woman at that time of the month will end up with a major, life threatening infection if they are not able to clean up on a regular basis. Women can call me a sexist pig all they want, but this is a biological reality that no amount of feminist bluster can change. Are we going to start allowing women to stay behind on an operation and have a unit go out short handed because it is that time of the month and the women need to stay where they have access to running water. On top of that, I do not think that the American public is prepared to deal with the repeated stories of women soldiers being captured and repeatedly gang raped by the enemy. Particularly when dealing with an Islamic enemy this is a problem. Their views women are such that they would feel completely justified in raping them, since they do not see them as equals and see them being soldiers as being againt their religious societal rules and therefor fair game for abuse. This is a very poor decision that is going to cause major problems. Hopefully the incoming Secretary of Defense will realize the stupidity of Panetta's decision and reverse it.

Oh Sarah please do not assume you know me. I did not make an assumption about you, in my mind that weakens the person you claim to be.

Because I posted about men being weak minded you tied me to it. what did you do in the military?

If you want we can even lay out our military careers I was only in 7 years so I am sure you did much more than I ever did.

The only argument I ever heard against it that held water was that women's muscles atrophied faster under stress (not whether they could pass the physical strength tests, but how quickly that strength deteriorated in the face of malnutrition and hardship). Various studies were commissioned by DoD to look at it and haven't reported back yet. But if the Joint Chiefs recommended that women be allowed to fight, that's all the evidence I need. None of us is qualified to armchair quarterback.

The Truth,

I'm gay??? When did that happen? Or do you, like most bigots assume everyone who supports gay rights must be gay, because all straight people think like you?

However, this could explain my string of failed relationships with men. Well that and my propensity for throwing hair brushes.

Larry,

You made a blanket statement about men that is STRAIGHT UP NOT TRUE. How did you come to that assumption? Either it's based on outdated stereotypes and excuses for male behavior, or you're pulling from your own life experiences.

Which is it?

Either way, it's wrong, and any man who DOES have that problem should be the one kept from combat, not the women, making it a pointless excuse. It's sexist towards MEN and used to maintain sexism towards women.

uh I am drawing from my experiences by seeing men in combat arms units repeatedly fall for women in support positions.

Company commander threatened my life in Iraq because I went above his head to discuss his affair that was clouding his judgement in Iraq.

It was not all, but some. I never said women should be kept from combat but they should at least meet the same physical requirements as men.

The Truth,

Now you've hurt my feelings. Do you have anything of substance to add, or do you just want my attention.

And BURN, you called a supporter of gay rights gay. I mean, if you really want to insult me, I'd pick a different avenue.

Larry,

uh I am drawing from my experiences by seeing men in combat arms units repeatedly fall for women in support positions.

I'm not saying affairs don't happen, but they're ALREADY happening. Allowing women in combat doesn't change that. The issues isn't with combat roles, it's with internal handling procedures in regards to this.

There are some schmucks and some sluts, that doesn't mean that's generalizable.

I never said women should be kept from combat but they should at least meet the same physical requirements as men.

I agree.

Go Sarah.... From what I'm reading here it sounds like the men who can't handle it. Women have the courage, the spirit, the know how and the willingness to take on combat. Lower standards?! Any woman who has gone to work in a male dominated environment knows she has to work twice as hard as the men to get any respect.... fortunately this is not difficult. Women have won Olympic gold medals while on their period, I'm sure they'll manage in combat. There are actually some birth control pills that keep a woman from having periods. Worried about women handling men peeing in the woods? Showers? Sounds to me like it's the men who are shy. Women have been dying alongside men in war for a long time now... finally they will get the recognition they deserve.

JS in SD,

"This is a very poor decision driven by politics rather than a real practical evaluation of the issue."

I'm just wondering about the extent of the authority of the Secretary of Defense to do such a thing as allowing women in combat roles since everything having to do with the military is governed by Title 10 United States Code. It's federal law that governs the roles that women are allowed to play in the military, and I haven't heard anything about Congress having changed the law recently, have you?

Consider, too, that women serve as police officers in our country. While police duty isn't the same thing as fighting in a military situation, people do have to be able to use a firearm and perform restraining activities for the unruly. Women who can't cut it don't become police officers. Same thing can apply to the military and, I agree, no standards should be altered in any way.

The Truth-2190315

Sarah: Um your admittedly gay so why do you think most men you know keep their fly zipped? Because THEY AREN'T INTERESTED.

Truth, I've been around the forums long enough and I have read a lot of Sarah's posts. Not once has she given the illusion to being or admitted to being gay. Not once. I can understand your need for attention, but using false information to do so shows your lack of engaging in a civilized conversation without resulting to name calling coupled with false accusations.

In regards to the article, it's nice to see that they will allow women the option to now be on the front line for those who qualify. Whether the decision was based for political points or for other reasons doesn't matter. It still achieved what many women and supporters of the petition wanted.

This will allow women to be assigned to select positions in ground combat

What does that mean just what is a "select" position?

This is stupid. Those who are acting like this is a womens liberation issue need to get over themselves. Mens bodies are better suited for infantry and women's bodies are much more likely to be targets of abuse if they are captured by radical islam. The bottom line is that having women serve in this manner is not better for the US military.

Sarah - I agree with your statement and I think that women should be allowed to do everything that men do. But you are wrong, its not just the men making sexual advances. and Sex in "combat" zone is far more common than you will ever know. I have know many women that get pregnant just to get out of deploying (stupid) but whatever. Just dont ask me to carry your crap.

Smart.

That's all I have to say. You look at all willing and able people and use them to whatever capacity they are best at.

To prejudge what people can do before you allow them to qualify for something is just stupid. All doors need to be opened and whoever wants to and can make it through, should be allowed to.

And if that doesn't strike fear into enemies who shortchange their own armed forces with prejudices, it should.

its not just the men making sexual advances. and Sex in "combat" zone is far more common than you will ever know. I have know many women that get pregnant just to get out of deploying (stupid) but whatever.

Again, that's an internal affairs issue and has nothing to do with whether women should be allowed in combat. Any person, man or woman who engages in inappropriate behavior should be disciplined. That doesn't mean that ALL members of a sex should be banned.

And don't worry, I carry my own crap.

Uh....we already have to allow them to do push-ups from their knees to pass a physical fitness test. Reduced amount of pull-ups, etc, etc

Don't even make me delve into the emotional impact actual combat will have on these women. My wife cries watching a Disney movie. How will they react when someone's leg and hipbone gets blown off and lands on their back?

Someone please explain to me how this will not compromise a fighting unit. If this actually worked, women would have been incorporated into fighting units thousands of years ago.

Roger that, you carry the 240 and follow me.

Nicole loves USA

Mens bodies are better suited for infantry and women's bodies are much more likely to be targets of abuse if they are captured by radical islam.

Sorry Nicole but as many have already pointed out in the comments, men do go through abuse as well when they have been captured. Regardless if the US soldier is male or female, they will undergo any and all torture the radical groups like to implement. That includes sexual abuse and torture.

Obama Biden & Hillary Are Scum

Umm.. Women are already assaulted, tortured, and raped when they serve in the US Military. Problem here is, it's SWEPT under a rug, its not reported, and the GOP turns a blind eye to it. I hate to say this.. but Women who are involved in these type of roles are very CLEAR about what it could do to them. IT's no different then Men.

The Truth-2190315

Using any kind of a gay innuendo completely and utterly diminishes your comment. I am in quite certain their are gay men/lesbian women who serve in our armed forces right now. They are part of a force that provides you freedoms to live in america. Instead of insulting them, you owe them a debt of gratitude.

As for America

ITS ABOUT TIME we got to this level in our society. It's time we stopped placing LIMITS on our citizens because of their sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other obtuse reason that supports 'equality' in this country. As for the women in these roles, or who will be in these roles. Thank you for your service to defend a nation and for the very freedoms you ensure I can live everyday.

Notice the statement that they will be allowed in select positions at battalion level! Lets see a squad = approx. 9-10 soldiers, a platoon = approx. 16 to 44 soldiers and consists of 2 to 4 squads, a company - approx. 62 to 190 soldiers and consists of 3 to 5 platoons, a battalion = approx. 300 to 1000 soldiers and consists of 4 to 6 companies, so they still won't be in direct hand to hand positions, all your concerns about their ability are moot until then! It is just another step in bringing them closer to actual combat,but they aren't there yet!

People on here are talking about men's libido's? News Flash! Who the hell is going to be thinking about anybody's libido, in the middle of a battle,or when there's a gun pointing at you?

You're going to want to get all any fire power you can get,I don't care if it's a Gorilla next you that knows how to use a gun!

Another thing these ladies are going to do just fine,and maybe even better than men.Then have the mental fortitude,they're also smaller, light weight and can move a hell of a lot faster,than some muscle bound male,they can also fit in spaces on the battle field that men can't!

GOOD LUCK LADIES MY HAT IS OFF TO YOU,YOU'LL JUST FINE!

Wow, Sarah, you seem to have an awful lot to say on a topic you know nothing about. You were never in the military, let alone in combat, so anything you have to say on the subject is irrelevant and lacks even a shred of credibility.

However, since you've weighed in, let someone who has actually served in the Marine Corps and has seen combat enlighten you: An infantryman (we're not changing it to infantryperson, by the way) carrying a full pack, with 782 gear, extra magazines and a rifle is carrying anywhere from 70 - 90 extra pounds. Throw in a SAW, an M60 or a mortar tube or base plate and you're over 100 pounds.

I was in well over a decade and during that time I met maybe two women Marines who could carry that much weight for any distance (in the absence of a chromosome test my assumption is that they were female), yet every infantryman has no choice but to carry it. It's not an issue of "trying out" as you ignorantly put it. If you're assigned the MOS of 0311 you WILL carry that equipment over long distances known affectionately as a "forced march" whether you like it or not.

At the end of the day this is nothing more than a hollow victory that means absolutely nothing, because the only role you'll ever see women in in a combat zone are the same ones you see them in today (driver, supply, etc.), because they are simply not physically capable of functioning as an 0311, nor could anyone count on them when the proverbial sh!t hit the fan since they'd be a mile back panting like a $2 whore on Saturday.

Now I know this offends your over-sized, man-hating ego, but since you appear to have at least a modicum of intelligence (you definitely know your way around Google and Wikipedia), a friendly suggestion would be to stick to topics you can either Google, or have personal experience with.

@Sarah

First, NO ONE is suggesting we lower the standards. Combat roles means meeting the same physical requirements as men.

Really, when's that going to be true for the PT Test? Female standards are way lower.

After all, we let ALL men try to pass those requirements knowing some will fail, why ban ALL women from trying knowing some will pass.

And the rest of them?

Second, we do not die from "period". There are simple BC methods that nip that in the bud, that are no harder to distribute than any other med in the military.

Yeah, but per military regulations, females can only be out in the field for about three weeks. You know, "female" problems.

Third, if you can't handle seeing us get blown away that is YOUR problem. And if you think people will start sleeping together in the middle of combat, well you're just ridiculous...

Please, your behind is going to sitting on your computer...

If you can't control your libido, that is as much on men as on women, and YOU shouldn't be in combat.

It takes two to tango, but I guess women don't have libido.

Fourth, rape as a consequence of capture, happens to BOTH sexes. It also happens to civilian women.

A consequence of capture? So the answer is to send women into combat knowing they will be raped.

And, YES, we should have to sign up for the selective service. And....

Blah..blah...blah....Shut up already!

Anyone in the military will tell you this is a bad idea. Anytime men and women are together in close quarters, it normally results in non-professional relationships. Ideally, this might work, in real life not so much. Nine times out of ten it's either going to be fratranization or harassment. Anyone denying that is delusional or Sarah, either way it's bad.

I think this should be volunteer only. If a woman can pass the physical tests required, then she's just as good as the next guy. Michelle Rodreguez type has your six. :)

If women want to go to the front lines, have at it. My husband fought on the front lines of Vietnam in Big Red One. He STILL has flashbacks from it.

D.Man,

Because women have never seen and/or worked in tragic and bloody conditions? There are no women paramedics, trauma surgeons, police officers...

And by the way, this is what we call progress??? If your logic worked, than anything that was implemented anytime after the dawn of society is moot. Women couldn't vote until the 20th century. Why not??? If women voting worked so well why didn't they implement it right away???

Recently our conflicts are more of an 8 to 5 combat job and then return to AC, fast foods, internet and a call home just to see if the dog got fed and women will fit in just fine there. However, in all previous major conflicts Viet Nam, Korea and WWII Women will not be able to measure up nor will they want to when they realize the misery that comes with that type of combat. For the doubtful check out some old war movies and let me know how you think women would handle Normandy, Iwo Jima, Peleliu and just about all other locations.

I know from experience what combat was like in the paddies and jungles of Viet Nam and that ain't no place for a woman. Forget privacy, sleep, eating, proper hygiene and get used to not taking a shower for 2 weeks unless you take off your clothes and enjoy the rain, carrying 80 pounds for ten hours, eating irregularly, sometimes staying wet for 10 days at a time and so exhausted sleeping in a pouring down rain without protection becomes routine and looked forward to over not sleeping. Did I mention you have to kill people and sometimes up front and personal like eye ball to eye ball, a K-bar does just fine.

Been there done that and don't want to go back. Happy trails to you though.

State of Awareness, Its not the same for men and women if they are captured. A man cannot become pregnant with the enemy's child as a result of sexual abuse.

@Sarah,

Because women have never seen and/or worked in tragic and bloody conditions? There are no women paramedics, trauma surgeons, police officers...

So your average lower enlisted female, at 5'3, and 102 pounds is going to be able to drag or lift her 6'1, 200lb battle buddy out of a firefight? That's before we calculate the weight of an IBA, kevlar, and his weapon. How about fireman carry?

I say why not? Women have always been fighting for equal rights and want to do the same as guys correct? If they want to be on the front lines, then they have to prove themselves and do the same training as the guys go through. If they pass the training, then they are fit to be on the front lines.

Ever seen a women out of the military? If you think they are all miss prissy and emotional..guess again. Women I seen come out of the military are very harden. They do not take any crap at all!! I love our one pedes physician where she was in the military. She drops more F bombs than I do!! She has no problem being blunt to you and tell it how it is! She is awesome as a co-worker and a mom to her kids!

It is a damn good thing that we are not apt to face a military situation where combat troops on the ground will determine the survival of our country. We have had deadly wars since WWII but none that had the survival of the country at risk since then 1945. I am a veteran and this action will probably be OK, as long as we realize that this does not make our country safer and it does put lives at risk and it will be more expensive than just having men in combat roles. All the loud noisy protests and attempts for justification from people like Sarah, that could care less that people will die because of this, will not change the facts that it is just not a good idea.

ProFreedom: I was hired by the Orange Country Sheriff's Dept. right after I was discharged from the USMC. The first thing that hit me during the hiring process was that women were held to different (read lesser) physical standard than men, and this didn't change at the academy.

It's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, but there it is. Of course, they had no choice but to lower the standards if they were ever going to be able to silence the incessant liberal squawking over not enough women being hired. Don't worry about the fact that they couldn't handcuff a man who was resisting, or carry a two-hundred pound person out of a burning building or out of the line of fire.

The cherry on top, though, was that any man who couldn't do the same was eliminated from consideration immediately. You just gotta love a liberal's ability to completely ignore the reality of the world they live in, and just continue bitching and moaning about things they know little to nothing about, but just want to be able to say they've won yet another personal right they aren't willing to lift a finger to defend.

Tigerj, dropping the F bomb and being hardened by the military doesn't erase the fact that she probably doesn't have the same physical strength as a man. Stop trying to act as though this is all about women asking for it. Loud mouth liberals who talk a big game and aren't even in the military should have no say in this. What happens when the women are told that they have to serve in that manner because of equal rights even though its in nobody's best interest?

Sarah,

Take a look at the following

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/12/12684555-women-in-the-infantry-forget-about-it-says-female-marine-officer?lite

I served with the infantry in 1968, I doubt very seriously a woman's abolity to keep up. My backpacks quite often weighed in excess of 100LBS.

ITIS,

I didn't know you hated women too, I thought it was only gays.

That's not even true on the PT test.

We're talking about implementing them into combat roles. They aren't yet lowered.

And the rest of them?

Don't make it. Just like the men.

Yeah, but per military regulations, females can only be out in the field for about three weeks. You know, "female" problems.

Again, we don't die from "period" and BC fixes that problem while being just as easy to implement as any other med.

Please, your behind is going to sitting on your computer...

So because all women won't be serving, just like all MEN don't serve, none of us get to try?

It takes two to tangle, but I guess women don't have sex drives.

AGAIN...

Again, that's an internal affairs issue and has nothing to do with whether women should be allowed in combat. Any person, man or woman who engages in inappropriate behavior should be disciplined. That doesn't mean that ALL members of a sex should be banned.

A consequence of capture? So the answer is to send women into combat knowing they will be raped

We let men.

Blah..blah...blah....Shut up already!

Make me internets tough guy.

I guess you just enjoy embarrassing yourself.

Carrying,

I didn't know you were the spokesmen for the ENTIRE military. Your position is bias. I suggest you study attributional bias. Furthermore, you AREN'T an expert and I could give a @!$%# about your experience. You were discredited after assuming anyone who hasn't been in combat isn't entitled to an opinion.

Also, if you want to look like you know what you're talking about, I'd address the arguments I've put forth and discredit those, as opposed to me. Which you've completely failed to do.

I would suggest you stick to telling your personal stories to those who care, since they're not credible and we don't base our policies off of them.

Steve,

It isn't about the women who can't do it. It's about the one's who can, and giving them a shot. No one thinks ALL women are going to cut it, but all MEN don't either.

Israel allows women in most combat positions and I do recall many people saying their military is weak. Women in Israel also have to serve in the military and is the only country to require it.

Sarah,

First, NO ONE is suggesting we lower the standards. Combat roles means meeting the same physical requirements as men. Furthermore, presuming that we will lower the standards is nothing but an excuse, seeing as that is within our control. After all, we let ALL men try to pass those requirements knowing some will fail, why ban ALL women from trying knowing some will pass.

Do you have ANY basis for what you're talking about? There are currently TWO APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test) standards in the United States Army. One for men and one for women. Until there is ONE APFT, we are lowering the standard. I have no problem with women in combat. Let 'em die like we've had to for centuries. I don't care. In fact, I'd love to see the ones for it out there in the field with my unit. I bet that would fix some attitudes. But don't spew some crud about how they are equal.

In my 23 years of military service, I've seen more than my fair share of female soldiers who could barely pass their PT standards let alone the men's. Oh yes, there are definitley some out there that can, but they are few and far between. Let's live in reality. The best thing the Army can do now is the make a single physical fitness standard for combat arms. This would be good for EVERYONE. End of story.

. Oh yes, there are definitley some out there that can, but they are few and far between

So why shouldn't they be allowed to? In terms of combat role physical requirements being lowered, it doesn't apply merely to the APFT...

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/04/162231290/first-female-marines-take-combat-leadership-test

Some of these programs haven't even allowed women to try, let alone have lowered the standards for them.

The best thing the Army can do now is the make a single physical fitness standard for combat arms.

I agree.

Mao zedong who was the brutal dictator of the 20^th century masterminded his strategy to encourage population growth in china in order to achieve a massive population as a strong backup for its ground troops to repell any foreign invasion in mainland china to achieve their political motives to make mainland china as a stronghold for the communist regime against any foreign invasion. Communist regime in china encourage their population by posting porn advertisements everywhere in all china websites to promote sexual activities among its people in order to boost their population to skyrocketing figures to create a massive population as a strong backup for its ground troops against any foreign invasion in mainland china. No wonder chinese population growth from 550 milion tripled to now 1.3 bilion people since the communist regime took power in china in 1940s. Even the communist regime in china needed to implement one child policy so china population won’t become overpopulated. If the communist regime in china lift the one child policy,china population could explodes because communist regime in china keep on promoting sexual activities among its people by posting porn advertisements everywhere in all china websites in order to boost their
population growth. So Red army in china is very strong in ground troops where
they have 1.7 milion strong ground soldiers,but the Red army in china are
relatively weak in Naval and air forces. That’s why Red army in china still
unable to retake taiwan because of the taiwan straits which serves as a
garrison to hold back the Red army in china from launching military invasion
against taiwan during the chinese civil war in china in 20^th century. If not because there is a taiwan straits between taiwan and china,probably taiwan already fallen in the hands of the communists during the chinese civil war in china in 20^th century. However US troops are particularly strong in naval and air forces,that’s why Red army in china always avoiding US mighty naval and air power. President obama is just like the “Green lantern” in the hollywood movie where no evil shall escape his sight. Obama has sensed the bad intention of the Red army in china to take back taiwan by military forces and that’s why he masterminded his new strategy “Air-Sea battle concept ” which poses a strong deterrance to the Red army in china from launching military attacks against taiwan and its neighbours countries which have maritime disputes with china in the south asia sea and east asia sea. The world is a safer place now under the leadership of obama as commander in chief. Americans have made a good choice.

Nicole loves USA

State of Awareness, Its not the same for men and women if they are captured. A man cannot become pregnant with the enemy's child as a result of sexual abuse.

This is true regarding the possibility of getting pregnant by such abuses, but women have accepted that risk, hence the fact that they are still volunteering and pushing for the opportunity to serve their country. It's their choice to put themselves out there while knowing the risks.

Sarah

So why shouldn't they be allowed to?

I repeat:

I have no problem with women in combat. Let 'em die like we've had to for centuries. I don't care.

Let me know if you someone who needs some directions to the nearest recruiting station.

Sarah: I discredited every one of your arguments in one fell swoop: women CANNOT meet the physical rigors of a simple ten mile forced march in full combat gear, let alone be counted on in actual combat. Nothing beyond that matters.

Your opinion does NOT matter because you have never been in the military, and have certainly never been in combat. You have zero credibility, just another loud-mouthed liberal who thinks they deserve everything while contributing nothing.

If my having been in the military and experienced combat does not make me an expert, I'd certainly like to hear your definition of "expert." Don't let sour grapes make you appear petty, sweetheart. Just thank me for my service and for protecting your right to be a member of a party that will eventually destroy this country.

And finally, I didn't tell any personal stories, I simply stated I had experience where you lack any - at all - zero - nada. You'll keep flapping those gums about something you know nothing about, though, won't you?

Remember . . . women in combat . . . non-issue.

Well, OK then...Did Leon also say that now males have a choice of whether or not to go into Combat ???....I mean it's all about FAIRNESS, isn't it ???

Sarah PLEASE stop posting about things you clearly don't know about... women in combat DO expect lower standards... you ACTUALLY said "First, NO ONE is suggesting we lower the standards"... that's true, the "standards" are already lowered to allow women IN the military. Women in the Military are expected to perform at a 75% of the 75% of men's LOWEST standard. THAT means, in order to qualify to be IN the military, she only has to be 75% of the LOWEST men's physical stature. HOW IS THAT EQUAL?

I've no problem with women in the combat as long as the standard IS the same... and no, as you said, do not lower the standard. Bring the standard UP to where the males MUST be. I was there, I know that I'm talking about... one of my BEST soldiers WAS female... technically she we was above standards in most area in my unit. PHYSICALLY, most of the men in our unit (non combat) would be able to beat her in a fight pretty easily. THAT'S where my issue is... I want soldiers that can carry me to medical aid if needed, can go one on one in a fist fight with our enemy, and one can stand up, side by side, with me when the time comes. A woman like that, well... would look more like a man. If that’s what she wants, then I say, “Go for it”…

I don't really have an opinion on the women in combat, but some remarks regarding periods, and our "time of the month" are just plain stupid.

" A woman at that time of the month will end up with a major, life threatening infection if they are not able to clean up on a regular basis"

...uh..... dafuq did I just read? Funny, I've been a woman all my life, and having periods for most of it, but this idiot MAN knows waaaaaaay more about periods than women, and I guess doctors, too, for that matter. This "infection" is a load of bs. JS in SD is a freaking MORON! If you're referring to TSS, that happens when a tampon is left in for waaaay longer than what is recommended. Ever heard of maxi pads? Or the depo shot? Most women don't get their periods on the depo shot.

" Are we going to start allowing women to stay behind on an operation and have a unit go out short handed because it is that time of the month and the women need to stay where they have access to running water" Women don't need anymore access to running water than men do. Obviously, we all want access to water after we use the facilities, but women do not REQUIRE it anymore than a man does.

No Mike, it's NOT about fairness, as the libby lefties and that racist in the White House would like, it's about combat efficiency and safeguarding of our Country. What does "fairness" have to do with that??

Sadden American 2012

So, instead of letting WOMEN 'meet' any standard, you want to tell them 'No' Sorry they can't serve? That's PURE discrimination and has no place in our society today. I am in quite certain there are WOMEN who can compete with a man in ANY category/standard you want to put them in.

Women have EVERY right to serve this country.

No Mike, it's NOT about fairness, as the libby lefties and that racist in the White House would like, i

This is exactly why the conservative RIGHT LOST the last election. They ignored Women, Minorities, Gays/Lesbians, and anyone that doesn't succumb to the "Male White American' Standards. Keep it up, that's exactly WHY the righties and their republicans will CONTINUE to lose.

Jerry, Israel is a tiny country surrounded by enemies. Their requirements exist for a reason. The USA does not require everyone to serve in the military and they don't have a shortage of male soldiers.

ITSabouttime, this is not about society. Its about combat. If its not best for the combat situation, it should not be considered.

No, she doesn't, JS69.

And for the record people, I'm a "liberal" and I think this is an awful idea.

Carrying,

So you're attempting to say that EVERY WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES can not meet the standards?

Every single one?

Well every single guy can't either, yet you let ALL of them try. What's the difference?

I'll repeat my question...

Why let all men try knowing some will fail, and not allow any women to try knowing some will pass?

Furthermore, you aren't a woman, so I guess we're equal. On what we know about this issue. Also, I'm certain you then aren't entitled to an opinion on anything that doesn't fit into the narrow margin of your life. Never had an abortion, you aren't entitled to an opinion. Never been gay, you aren't entitled to an opinion. Never been on welfare, you aren't entitled to an opinion. Never been a liberal, you aren't entitled to an opinion. Never been president, you aren't entitled to an opinion...

An expert would be someone who writes and studies policies, through methodology, and who's findings are peer reviewed, vetted and accepted by the leadership as generalizable and applicable.

Your personal experiences are NONE of those things.

I thank people who are deserving and allow rights to ALL citizens. You're therefore disqualified, sweet cheeks.

Sadden,

I want soldiers that can carry me to medical aid if needed, can go one on one in a fist fight with our enemy, and one can stand up, side by side, with me when the time comes

Never said anything other than that.

robin xoxoxoxoxo

[I don't really have an opinion on the women in combat, but some remarks regarding periods, and our "time of the month" are just plain stupid.] [" Are we going to start allowing women to stay behind on an operation and have a unit go out short handed because it is that time of the month and the women need to stay where they have access to running water" Women don't need anymore access to running water than men do. Obviously, we all want access to water after we use the facilities, but women do not REQUIRE it anymore than a man does.]

Good point, robin. I feel no remorse for any person, regardless of sex, when it comes time to go down range. Total B.S. I'll go one further. Women in combat arms CANNOT use pregnancy as an excuse either. They must have an abortion or leave combat arms altogether. Seems fair and reasonable. Anything to do with OB/GYN should be thrown out in combat arms. Meet the standard and we'll call it good.

Sadden American 2012...I guess I needed to put the / sarc / at the end of my comment for you.....Sorry that you missed my point.

Nicole loves USA

I understand where you are coming from. However, let's have undeniable proof that a woman cannot do the same role as a man. If there is no proof, then there is NO justification for denying women the right.

@ Sarah

There is already a double standard for women in the military.

Check the APFT requirements.

I have no doubt some women could do better than men, but until the double standard is fixed...the doubts will remain fixed.

ItsAboutTime, if it disrupts the unit to have a women there, its an issue. We are not talking about a typical work situation. These soldiers are living together 24/7. This isn't a women's rights issue. I doubt if the majority of female soldiers want to be in this type of position.

Nicole,

My point was women do serve in a situation that is very dangerous, and they have done well. Most people are posting their theory and I gave an actual place where women serve and the military is ranked as one of the best in the world.

Sarah, Sarah, you seem to have everything always figure out. A know it all type. Have you ever served? And the reason you have problems with relationships is because you are a miserable bi%ch

Nicole loves USA

ItsAboutTime, if it disrupts the unit to have a women there, its an issue. We are not talking about a typical work situation. These soldiers are living together 24/7. This isn't a women's rights issue. I doubt if the majority of female soldiers want to be in this type of position.

You have succinctly hit the nail on the head.

Combat, like nature, could give a sh** about "fair." There two groups only in combat: alive and dead. Period. Stay out of the second pile is the only rule.

I would refuse to fight with them

Dman women have been fighting in wars for millennium .

1 Judit - a non-christian queen who fought and won against the queen of Sheba

2 Trinh- Vietnamese queen who pushed out the Chinese

3 Boudicca- drove the Romans from what is now England

4 Fo Hou- chinese general who is that to have had the most powerful army of her time.

5 Of course all of the female samurai in feudal japan. One in particular I was going to name her but I am drawing a blank. She was considered one of the most successful and violent samurai at the time.

All of the women i listed above fought in combat alongside men and women alike. I left out Joan of Arc because they made a movie of her some I assume most folks know about her. I now hope that you understand that it was not until recent human history that women were deemed incapable.

I have no issues with women serving in combat roles. In fact, I think it's long overdue.

I'm going to pick on ItIs and his post on the physical requirements for soldiers for a few minutes here. The size difference between male soldiers and female soldiers is overblown. I do not care what you are doing, cardio counts more than size and muscle mass every time. And cardio is where female soldiers have a big advantage. A smaller body with less muscle mass requires less oxygen to get it moving and keep it moving. The ability of a female soldier to carry a pack or a soldier are a non-factor, in my opinion. The female soldier, in terms of pound for pound lower body strength, will be stronger than 90% of her male collegues. You haul the load with your lower body and balance it with your upper body. I don't care how jacked you are; if your cardio sucks, you are not much use for carrying much of anything.

Female soldiers have other advantages that come from being physically smaller. They're a smaller target. They should have an advantage in quickness and agility, which would make for a much more elusive smaller target.

I look to WWII and the Russian women snipers as all the proof you need as to whether or not women can get the job done in combat. The Russian snipers had an absolutely fearsome reputation among the Germans. Of all the elite Russian snipers, only one male sniper was able to out-snipe the elite female snipers, and his name was Zytsev (a name anyone familiar with WWII and the history of sniping should be very familiar with).

Just wanted to add my two cents...since I'm a woman who has been in the military. I think the defense chief's decision is fantastic. Military women are already seeing action in what are supposed to be "non-combat" positions, so if they're dodging IEDs and firing bullets, they should get some official recognition. For those who are saying this is a bad idea, consider that men and women have different skills that go well hand-in-hand. True, most women won't be able to drag a 180-lb. man out of harm's way. But women, on average, shoot more accurately than men. Women also have good instincts and tend to give greater attention to detail. Sure, physical strength and endurance count for something, but all the muscles in the world won't do a soldier any good if he steps on an IED that he failed to notice on the side of the road. Just sayin'.

And as far as the rape goes...yeah, we know about that. We're all too aware. We can't even get into our cars in a dark parking lot without checking the backseat for creeps or leave our drinks unattended at the bar to go to the restroom in our own country. Rape is an every day reality, not just a combat reality. And you DON'T solve the problem by keeping women away from certain places, like the front lines of a war or the local nightclubs. You solve the problem by empowering women with equality. Because with equality comes respect, and you don't rape those you respect. Yeah, we might get gang-raped by the Taliban in the process. But our presence on the front lines will encourage women in that oppressive culture to stand up for themselves. Read your history. Women have overwhelmingly been the driving force behind positive social changes.

Sarah, I agree with giving women a chance to show what they can do without lowering any standards but the reality is eventually the standards will be lowered because some women will complain its sexist to expect women to perform the same as men. If you don't believe me look at some of the firefighting programs that had to adjust their standards so more women could be firefighters, which means there are people out there who cannot do the job they should be able to do.

As for the pregnancy issue, not sure how to fix that (meaning what to do for women who get pregnant because they don't want to deploy with their unit), unless the women voluntarily use birth control devices (not condoms) or pills during a given period of time and have some predetermined punishment for those who don't comply. If you don't think it happens, look to Desert Storm, I know there are women who knew when they were to deploy 2 months out and when it came time to deploy they couldn't because they were pregnant and then someone else got short notice deployed. Or maybe they didn't know they were pregnant when they left but then found out later they were pregnant and had to come back, which caused someone to be short notice deployed in their place.

I do agree that there are those women who will put some men to shame, these women I would have no concern about. My fear is that the women who shouldn't be there, i.e. those who think it's cool to be a women in a combat unit and wants the standards lowered because she can't make it with the necessary standards, will get in and jeopardize the other members, both men and women, of the unit when the time comes and they can't hack it.

AKelsey,

"Military women are already seeing action in what are supposed to be "non-combat" positions, so if they're dodging IEDs and firing bullets"

Women have also been flying on the RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft in the Air Force since 1986. Those reconnaissance missions have always been classified as combat missions. I used to fly on them, but it was before women were allowed (1977-1979). They aren't dodging bullets, but there is always the possibility of being shot down, which is why they are classified as combat missions.

I have no doubt that women who want combat have the heart to do the job. However do they have the capability to complete a mission that might require being in the field months on end with rashes, trench foot, insect bites and so much anger you can't think straight....not to mention fatigue at the mental as well as physical level. If you suggest that woman have a stronger constitution to deal with this than men and could handle the adversity better then my suggestion would be that we field an all woman army.

Why must we for the sake of political correctness have our daughters and granddaughters come home in body bags. At least there was a time when we could limit it to one gender from each FAMILY. Now parents can look forward to all their children being at risk.

Wouldn't it be prudent to just wait until this country is so weak due to the progressive agenda that all of us have to fight to save our homeland?

Pretty typical replies in response to this type article. The shining excetption is Tiger who seems to recommend that women can succeed in combat by "f bombing the enemy.

Good work!

Sarah-3043284---Once again you delight in the all is good arena of liberalism. You say let them meet the standards, I say fair enough but I will give you an example of how the standards will change. Lets say it is 1977 and I join the military at the time males were required to lift 100 lbs over their head standard military press to pass the enlistment physical. Women had to lift 50 lbs over their heads standard military press. The military fearing a backlash from the requirement decided to make it equal, hence they lowered the standard to 75 lbs. I agree there have been technological advancements since so more jobs opened and that is all fine and dandy. However the first time a female does not get the position she wants no matter the reason, fitness or otherwise, out will come the lawsuits and guess what the standard will change. Humping the bush is nothing like fixing airplanes, or driving a Humvee through the streets of Baghdad. You see the argument is the same for women as for men, will the standard be enforced to what it is currently or will it change when someone does not get their way and someone gets killed because of it. Men and women work together in the military more than you are aware of, but some things must be judged on plain old physical ability. Notice there are no women playing linebacker in the NFL. I am in 100 percent in favor of equal treatment in the military too bad I have never seen it.

Great!!! Now just wait til they get the double penetration and gangbang treatment from the enemy. That'll surely boost their morale and bravery! Then suddenly all the females will cry "SEXISM"!!!

@sarah look at this page: usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards and you will see the different APFT standards listed for men and women. Here are some examples: if you are male between 17-21 you must do 71 push-ups to get 100 points, and if you are female, same ages, you need to do 42 push-ups to get 100 points! Women have to do 2 more situps than men in comparable age group 22 -26 yrs old 80 vs 78 to receive 100 points. Running the 2 mile men have 13 minutes to get their 100 points in the 22- 26 age group. Women running have15.36 minutes to get 100 points in the 22-26 year age group

Hmmm... The U.S. military should be an equal opportunity employer.

Women do serve as support specialists, Helicopter pilots, weapons battery command, communications and so on.. Many are put in the active areas which in a modern battlefield is everywhere.. They have things that are on both sides of the fence when it comes to skills.. They think and communicate faster but under extreme pressure have a faster loss of fine motor skills then men.. Mental overload under extreme stress causing the lock up syndrome is also higher.. Not to say there are not exceptions to the rule.. The old physical strength argument is old.. In a mechanized military the heavy lifting for the most part is done by machines.. Sustained combat is rare so a week in the $hit is unlikely unless you consider a fire base in the $hit.. So as long as you can play up the strengths and minimize the negatives it will work.. A required depo pravera injection will solve the pregnancy issue and since the government owns your a$$ when in violating an order of no pregnancy permitted unless authorized would earn them a DD..

Looking at history, lots of women socialized with men during deployment.. WW2 to current can be referenced to show that it is gonna happen no matter what.. Israel uses women because of the simple shortage of live bodies of the male gender.. All citizens are required to serve once completed with school unless they are disqualified for the various standard reasons.. Once they complete their 3? years they are in the reserve till they are 63? years old and must own a firearm and be ready to be called..

Carryingconcealed,

You're making too much sense Devil Dog. I spent over 16 in the Corps (0311/0451), and about 6 in the Army (19D/11B2V). Only once did I have WMs around me in a "hot" theater...Somalia. I can attest 100% that not one of those 3511 B&P types could, or would carry their own. They didn't want to be "grunts." When I was assigned to 1st LSB, the Company XO was a female. She was the first one I knew of that recieved her "gold wings." She had difficulty jumping with full combat equipment. When I was in the Army, never ever, saw a female except in BNCOC. They were "gung ho" about the field ex's, until it came time to go "grunt." This female"Sarah", wouldn't last five minutes into the LRSD, Ranger, or Marine Recon Indoc. These females simply want to "try out", not realizing that it's not a "pep" squad. She quickly disappears when called on to prove her "gut." Same thing applies to males...it's not a "club", and we quickly Id'd those who thought it was. Marines will call it as it is, and this is a non starter in any "grunt" outfit. Glad I left when I did. I would have refused to serve with or under one, just like I did when incompetent males "no loads" were around. Call 'em out whenever they rear their suck.

As a Navy Submarine Service Veteran I don't care about a male/female military. I care about a US citizen military. Any US citizen who wants to defend our country should be allowed to, as long as they can pass all the necessary tests that go along with that certain job. That citizen would their own limitations as to want they could deal with, and if they thought they succeed, they should be allowed to try!!

If we had a draft that included men and women, we would never have these goddam wars in the first place!!

@Sarah who died and made you the SME for all things pertaining to Marine Corp and Army Infantry? Have you ever completed SOI at Camp Pendleton or OSUT/AIT at FT. Benning? And please tell us since you know all about combat arms who made you the eternal know it all who tries to tell us those who have been there and Sat on EIB committee's and been on Audie Murphy boards. Your hypocrisy and ignorance is appalling and irrelevant you love to here yourself talk do the world a favor and close your mouth.

No problem. Let them join a combat arms MOS and got through basic and ait (it's been a few years...do they still call it ait?). No female should be allowed to enter a combat arms unit until they have met the physical training criteria for their age group in ther male category.

Now politicians, do something right the first time in your miserable lives...study the Israel and Soviet military methods of training and utilization for females in both combat and peacetime scenarios. Then adapt it to fit the US military.

20 years in the cavalry...I can almost guarantee you our politicians will change the standard to meet the person.

Sarah...

And don't worry, I carry my own crap

If a soldier can shoulder a 50+lbs pack, all of the other combat gear/ammo, and conduct a patrol in knee deep or higher snow in mountainous terrain for extended periods of time (don't think hours), then it doesn't really matter what sex they are.

I've read your threads for quite a while now...I doubt very much you can do what I just described above. And yes, one can get a feel for an unmet person by their written word. I get the feeling you're alot of talk and not walk. But keep talking Sarah...there's always the possibility of a crisis/war where women will be involuntarily drafted and put in a combat arms mos whether they want to be or not.

Nicole loves USA

Mens bodies are better suited for infantry and women's bodies are much more likely to be targets of abuse if they are captured by radical islam.

just how is one captured by a religion?

According to the Supreme Court ruling, the exclusion of women for registering for the SSS was based on the ban of women serving in combat roles. Now that the ban is about to be lifted, I hope that women enjoy registering for the draft.

I also hope they enjoy pooping in tubes, a general lack of hygiene, and being exposed to male genital for extended periods of time. I'm all for equality if that's the real goal.

As far as physical standards go, they're already lower for women. Just look at the Marine Core, Navy, or Army physical test they do every 6 months. Man 55+ pushups in one minute, women 17.

To any idiots thinking that this is a bad idea or will weaken our armed forces (or whatever excuse you have): I want you to remember this: In the Soviet Red Army, some of the most fearsome snipers and soldiers were WOMEN. It's a sad day when the former Soviet Union was more progressive with its military than the US

If men can't control themselves around women, then it speaks poorly of the men, not the women.

Lol! Well, that street can run both ways. Quit acting like women are always in control of themselves and their actions. You saw how quickly some of those military women jumped in with the guys when they got in trouble for humiliating those captives. Women can be just as irresponsible as men in most situations.

As for them being allowed on the front line, I say let 'em. If they want equality, they should be willing to do the most dangerous of military jobs like the men. Now, if we can just get a "men's night" at bars and clubs to move this "equality" dream forward ;)

Kudos to Sarah-3043284 and select others for having the patience and intelligence to deal with so many of these absurd Right Wingers and their specious BS. These clowns appear during every milestone, at every hurdle of prejudice and ignorance conquered; right before history files them in the loser bin for posterity. They're the dying gasp of the oppressive old guard. They're the final sign that you're doing something right.

@Cpt Porkchop

The Soviets also have the Kgb. We're not the soviets.

@Al

Kudos to Sarah-3043284 and select others for having the patience and intelligence

Please, the only people who listen to that loud mouth are the ones delusional enough to believe anything. She has no idea what she's talking about and types soley for the love of punching a keyboard.

@Sarah

I didn't know you hated women too, I thought it was only gays.

I hate neither. Unrealistic, emotionally charged nonsense is another story.

We're talking about implementing them into combat roles. They aren't yet lowered.

So physical requirements play no role on the battlefield? Of course combat isn't being lowered, but can you please tell me how females, who are not required to pass the same physical fitness standards as men, are better equipped to handle the same level of combat? If a man has to carry 75lbs ruck, are women going to do the same thing?

Don't make it. Just like the men.

Before or after they get on the battlefield? I've never seen a guy get pregnant to get out of a deployment.

Again, we don't die from "period" and BC fixes that problem while being just as easy to implement as any other med.

Really? Then how come females can't be in the field for longer than three weeks, but birth control fixes that problem? Can you also tell me how there will not be increased fratranization, when females believe that pregnancy will not be the result of sexual activity? Have we even gone into the impact on unit morale?

Again, that's an internal affairs issue and has nothing to do with whether women should be allowed in combat. Any person, man or woman who engages in inappropriate behavior should be disciplined. That doesn't mean that ALL members of a sex should be banned.

Why doesn't it, when placing women on the front lines places them in close facinity with males. Even in a training environment, it's almost a certainty there will hanky panky going on. So, is internal affairs is supposed to go out to the front lines, hold up a hand and go "time out. Time out. I have an investigation to conduct?"

We let men.

Get raped? Get real! I'm trying to think of the last time I heard of a male raped as a pow.

I guess you just enjoy embarrassing yourself.

Projection...denial....It's got to be really hard to make sense, when you keep putting your foot in your mouth.

Kudos to Sarah-3043284 and select others for having the patience and intelligence to deal with so many of these absurd Right Wingers and their specious BS. These clowns appear during every milestone, at every hurdle of prejudice and ignorance conquered; right before history files them in the loser bin for posterity. They're the dying gasp of the oppressive old guard. They're the final sign that you're doing something right.

Good job on trying polarize the issue here.

I really can't believe all the negative posts I'm seeing.If you want to see if the female is capable of fighting alongside men, then look no further than Israel. They have some of the best infantry units in the world and they have WOMEN in them ! I was a cop for years, aqnd worked with women officers. Some were of questionable character, and others I would follow into hell. But ya don't know what ya got till you test'em. I say "good luck" to anyone who makes it to the combat units. By the way, I was in Baghdad, and the Army Nurses were right there with us.

Everybody take a breath, the armed services did NOT lower standards for minority officers. They will NOT lower standards do to gender. The command staff WANTS to achieve their objectives.

Mother Nature is going to have the biggest say on all this, having made males into Hunter-killers and females into Baby-carriages, un-pc, yes, correct, also yes. For this reason, the 80-20 rule applies, 80 % of the young man can be Infantry, with 80 % of the young women failing to make the grade, leaving only about 20 % to join the males in the heavy lift combat units. This un-PC reality is sure to throw Sarah into warp drive and attempt to flame me into next month. But it does not change the FACT the male muscle mass is about their shoulders-upper body and the female's is about the hips-lower body. We have different functions, get use to it.

For those that 'think' we are all the same. Why do we have TWO Olympics ? One for men & a second for women. Could it be gender politics, to allow the girls to win metals too ? A quick check of identical competitions shows the female 'gold' didn't even come close to the male 'bronze'.

ALL policy & operation decisions from either the military command or their civilian masters, that do NOT increase OUR TROOP'S SURVIVABILITY or their LETHALITY AGAINST THE ENEMY is ABSOLUTELY UNFORGIVABLE.

Playing with our defender's lives should never be done DURING a conflict, especially for PC reasons.

Everybody take a breath, the armed services did NOT lower standards for minority officers. They will NOT lower standards do to gender. The command staff WANTS to achieve their objectives.

The standards are already lower, haha.

Al deLeon. You are just an idiot to think that "right wing" people are against this decision. I'm "right wing" and I think it's a great idea.

I hope the ones that want it get the combat units, and I hope that they get the support and encouragement of not only their family, but also their unit. And as long as you idiots (you know who you are) keep driving the wedge, this country will continue to fall apart.

way kool ladys ... soon enough the men will respect you as a life taker as well as a life giver

@Sarah

So you're attempting to say that EVERY WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES can not meet the standards?

No, we're saying they're not required to meet MALE standards and yet expect equal treatment, that's the difference. Gender equality works in theory, but not in practice.

Furthermore, you aren't a woman, so I guess we're equal. On what we know about this issue. Also, I'm certain you then aren't entitled to an opinion on anything that doesn't fit into the narrow margin of your life. Never had an abortion, you aren't entitled to an opinion. Never been gay, you aren't entitled to an opinion. Never been on welfare, you aren't entitled to an opinion. Never been a liberal, you aren't entitled to an opinion. Never been president, you aren't entitled to an opinion...

Furthermore, you're not in the military, so I guess you know little to nothing about the issue. Also, I'm certain the opinion you are entitled to, spanning the minute scope of what limited knowlege you have, isn't worth much. Never enlisted a day in your life...aren't entitle to an opinion... Never had to do a PT test....Aren't entitled to an opinion... Never been on the front lines? Sit down and shut the blank up!

Your personal experiences are NONE of those things.

No, we can't all sound as stupid as you.

I want soldiers that can carry me to medical aid if needed, can go one on one in a fist fight with our enemy, and one can stand up, side by side, with me when the time comes.

Never said anything other than that.

Wait, here I was thinking rifle marksmanship played a significant role in combat-- you know the ability to hit what you shoot at -- but now we're going fist to fist with the enemy. So, some 5'1 women is supposed to engage her larger oponent in a fist fight? How's that work out again in reality? Oh wait, I forgot you're lost in space.

@Nicole loves USA

Tigerj, dropping the F bomb and being hardened by the military doesn't erase the fact that she probably doesn't have the same physical strength as a man. Stop trying to act as though this is all about women asking for it. Loud mouth liberals who talk a big game and aren't even in the military should have no say in this. What happens when the women are told that they have to serve in that manner because of equal rights even though its in nobody's best interest?

Doesn't matter is she doesn't have the same physical strength as a man. If they pass the same training as the guys, they pass! there is no but behind it.

It's also not that women asked for it..It's about women who want it! Like I said, if they can pass the same training as the men, what is the difference? I'v seen plenty of guys who are so pussified, women would trample them!

Are you insinuating I am a liberal? If so, Pffft hardly! I am more libertarian if anything..You should see my gun rights posts..

Oh are you in the military? If not, you also have no say!!..based on your analogy. Let the women who are in the military have the say! If they say they can do..THEN PROVE IT!!

It is a damn good thing that we are not apt to face a military situation where combat troops on the ground will determine the survival of our country. We have had deadly wars since WWII but none that had the survival of the country at risk since then 1945

Ummmmmmm............got news for you, bud. As long we keep playing the role of world kinder-care provider and as long as the war mongering pinheads in Washington have this ludicrous, asinine notion of "spreading democracy across the world will make it all better-er", we're going to NEED LOTS OF WOMEN in combat, because as it sits now, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MEN FOR THE JOB.

And you better hope that we have enough ladies willing to help carry the load, pilgrim; because it's only going to get worse in these third world cat litter boxes in the Mid East and Africa.

Woman screaming equal rights, will here you go women. . Let's see how they do in a kill or be killed situation.

I agree with JS from SD and several other grunts who have slogged through the boonies of VN. I wore the Blue Suit in the AF for 25 years primarily driving airplanes. This was before we had female crew members and if I were still there I would welcome their professionalism. Ground Combat - Absolutly NO. This is all political and don't ever believe Hegel, should he be crowned defense chief, would ever rescind the order. He is out to "gut" the military and its nuke capability.

WOW... How low we have sunk as a nation.

I have no doubt there are women capable of surviving combat, but as a infantry soldier class of 1968 we do not have any business putting women in these positions.

As for guys keeping it zipped that is wishful thinking and the more hardcore combat they are subjected to the more steam needs to be let off.

I can give a lot of politically incorrect reasons on this only to get ridiculed by the lefties in here, but we have no business putting our sisters and mommas in these positions

To all the arm chair experts out there ragging about women in combat, let me say this, Women are equally able to kill another human being as a man.It really isn't that hard.

However,

Sarah;

To you will say this. For my own part this is a sad day. I had always thought such ugly affairs as warfare were beneath women. Women, while they can be just as savage when needs be, lack the century's of the barbarism of war men have. This is just my personal opinion and that having been said, as a combat veteran of Vietnam, I will tell you no training, no simulation, no video game, no drill or maneuver can prepare you for what awaits you on the battle field. Nothing short of the battle field is the same. Women getting "Blown away" as you put it, will be a tragedy. What concerns me is the lasting effects combat will have upon these first U.S. women vets. Like it or not, men and women process experiences quite differently. I wonder how the horrors of combat will damage a women's mind in their first EVER exposure to the horrors of war. I hope we don't end up with generations of women with horrendous trauma from combat. We have enough male Vets living under bridges and abandoned buildings. They go on forgotten and alone and are found all too often dead and alone and no one seems to care. Each life lost cheapens our own. Each forgotten, ignored, battle damaged soul that passes unwanted and alone takes just a bit more of our civility with them.

I did 4 tours in Vietnam as an Army Ranger, 1st Special Forces, 10th mountain, and MAC-V, etc., I can literally see the faces and bodies of fallen comrades and friends as well as the faces of every enemy soldier or V.C. I killed. These things will never leave you. It's not the things we are ordered to do that haunt you the most, it is the things we aren't ordered to do that keep you up nights. And before you say, it won't be you, trust it will be. I still have nights when it all seems too real, too present. Thirty five years hence and it is still very real for me. No, I'm not a slobbering idiot on disability. I own my own businesses and operate a large farm. But, once you've been exposed to combat, you will be forever changed and the experiences will NEVER leave you. This is just the simple truth. It had been my hope our women would not have to endure combat duty. It appears greater minds see things differently. Sadly, This has nothing to do with equality, it merely lessens women to the point of "baby killer", immoral mass murderer, psychopath" and all the things we were called by our adoring countrymen upon our return home.

If this is what you truly believe you want to do, I wish you well and more power to you. However, be fully aware it is not without personal consequence and for many those costs are high indeed, death is seen as the ultimate sacrifice, In truth, in many ways death is a blessing. Those with severe mental and/or profound physical disability from protracted combat suffer far worse fates and suffer far longer than those who are killed in action. NO ONE escapes combat unchanged, No one. Somehow, the flag draped coffins that will arrive from battle zones bearing the remains of our daughters, will, for me, be all the more tragic. Just a sign of the further de-evolution of our society. Perhaps, just perhaps, I'm hopelessly old fashioned. But, please keep in mind this has nothing to do with gender bias. It just seems that women have been taken down a few notches by joining in the ranks of combat troops. Heroes or no, dead or horribly disabled seems simply more tragic when it is our young women, especially if they are left to fend for themselves as has been the case for far too many other Vets.

Sorry to rain on the Equality parade, I simply fail to see how sending women into fron line combat advances us as a people. Sorry.

I'm so glad they did this.

I don't know about you, but If I were in another country and was invaded by the U.S. I'd feel a lot better about being shot, tortured or having my house bombed and my family blown to bits if it was a woman (or member of the LBGT community) that did it.

This is the kind of thing that we elected the Democrats, and, especially our first black president, to do.

I'm just glad to be alive to see this happen.

Sister Sarah says:

The men I know who serve are more than capable of keeping their flies zipped. In fact, MOST men I know are more than capable of that.

And I am sure it is extremely easy in your presence.

And to The Nicodemus - BRAVO!!!!! Much like the rest of the touchy feely movement for equality, let them live it. I am sure many will come back (hopefully not in a bag) with a whole new outlook and respect that they lost years ago.

Easy enough.. I don't care who die's for my freedom as long as I'm not the one dying. I'm enjoying my Chateau Mouton Rothschild 2005 with a beautiful Scottsdale sunset. I support our troops and anyone who is willing to support freedom...

Hello folks, it's a sad day that women will be lowering themselves to being cold calculated murderers like many young men have been forced to do. There is no honor in killing men, women and children for the Oil, Banking and Corporate cartels. If you think this is some kind of victory for women it's not! It's a sad sad day!

Don't even make me delve into the emotional impact actual combat will have on these women. My wife cries watching a Disney movie. How will they react when someone's leg and hipbone gets blown off and lands on their back?

Someone please explain to me how this will not compromise a fighting unit. If this actually worked, women would have been incorporated into fighting units thousands of years ago.

D.Man

Women have been viewed as inferior to men for much of history. The reason they weren't incorporated into fighting likely has more to do with patriarchal cultural biases then it does with actual ability.

Speaking of, you mention your wife crying over a Disney movie. How many times have men wanted to cry but felt they would be perceived as weak if they did, no matter what the issue was. Do you think men never cry in war? That is a foolish notion. The fact that soldiers come back from war and drink their problems away, or worse, kill themselves because they don't feel allowed to properly express themselves says to me that there is a societal problem. If you assume that men and women are inherently different in terms of thought and behavior, you are mistaken. Gender biases are LEARNED.

Ah yes, Sarah the omniscient, that is exactly what I'm "attempting" to say <sarcasm>. Because as you can clearly see in my last post, I stated word-for-word that not a single woman in the entire country could meet these standards.

Do you always get so pissed off when you're losing an argument that you just resort to lying?

To get back to facts, however, under the current requirements set by the DOD, there are many women who can pass the physical requirements to gain entry into the military (obviously). My point is that once they are transferred to the Infantry, the vast majority of them (98%?) have not an ice cube's chance in hell of being to able to perform to the physical standards of their male counterparts.

That, my dear, is a cold stone, indisputable fact that you'll just have to take my word for given that you've never served a day for your country in the military.

As for some men not being able to meet the standards, once again you are dazed and confused (most likely due to your complete absence of any knowledge whatsoever on this topic). Before men can go to ITS (Infantry Training School) they would have already graduated boot camp which has much higher physical requirements than those placed on women going through their own "version" of boot camp.

Once the men are in ITS there is no pass or fail as a general rule, barring injury. Infantry is their MOS and they are expected to get through the school, learn what's being taught, deal with the physical challenges, and come out the other side combat-ready.

For women coming from their weak version of boot camp, ITS would be a whole different ballgame that they would be pitifully ill-prepared for, assuming the standards were the same as they are for me. And combat would be even worse.

Is this finally starting to sink into that thick, liberal, I'm woman hear me roar head of yours because contrary to your assertion that we're equal on this subject, you don't even qualify to say the word "combat" out loud, let alone express an opinion as though it were fact.

Regarding your statement that an expert is someone "who writes and studies policies, through methodology, and who's findings are peer reviewed, vetted and accepted by the leadership as generalizable and applicable." All I can say is that you are so far removed from the reality of how life actually works, that rather than feel the same disgust for you that others on this forum apparently do, I just feel pity.

I'll tell you what, though: if the sh!t ever hits the fan and the citizens of this country are forced to fend for themselves, and you have one neighbor who "writes and studies policies" and "who's (should be whose) peer reviewed, vetted and accepted by the leadership," and you have another neighbor who is a former combat vet, please please please run to the guy who meets your description of an expert and ask him to protect you so that we never again have to hear you spew the infected pablum from your mouth that you pollute this forum with.

And one last thing...did you call me sweet cheeks just because I referred to you as sweetie in an earlier post? C'mon now, did you? Is it because your were all angry and sh!t and wanted to get in a tit for a tat? Tell the truth... LOL!

Oh, and, Sarah . . . Google and Wikipedia are most certainly NOT your friends. They're betraying you.

jerry l-1335133

Israel allows women in most combat positions and I do recall many people saying their military is weak. Women in Israel also have to serve in the military and is the only country to require it.

Well, that might explain why they got their ass kicked in the last conflict in 2006 by Hezbollah. This was the conclusion of that war from the U.S. viewpoint:

The Cost of Weak Training and Readiness

Neither actives or reserves trained at high levels for combat; reserve training particularly weak.
Lack of both large-scale and small unit exercise training affected command and reactions at every level.
Poor to very poor logistics.
Move into Hezbollah ambushes in obvious terrain areas; bunched armor and troops and increased vulnerability.
Slow movement and reaction allowed relatively static Hezbollah forces to get into IDF decision-making and maneuver tactics.
Armored forces not prepared for swarming of Hezbollah ATGMs and other anti-tank weapons.
Not trained to fight a Hezbollah force fighting from prepared positions, tunnels, in built-up areas.
Special forces limited in role and sometimes committed to marginal objectives.

According to a Taliban spokesman interviewed by the Asia Times, the Taliban’s 2008 spring offensive will be characterised by a new strategy based upon the guerrilla tactics of legendary Vietnamese general, Võ Nguyên Giáp.

As one of the principal architects of the defeat of France and the US in the two Indochina Wars, General Giáp is an understandable model for the Taliban to try and emulate in their own war against the US and its European allies.

It was only a matter of time before they would study counterinsurgency methods to fight wars before they implement the final stage of convention showdown with the enemy. We all sat shocked watching the news and seeing Israel getting their ass kicked by guerrilla warfare that turned into convention tactics in the end which stop Israel in their tracks. And just like Vietnam, the world got to see it in their living room, including the Israelis. Yep, I would say judging from what I saw broadcasted from the Middle East, the military leaders of Hezbollah and Taliban have been studying a different type of battle tactics that perhaps IAF was not prepared for. Their base of operations and supply points were within the the civilian neighborhoods. That may have been cold blooded, but it was a shrewd move on their part. You can't get to them without killing large scales of civilians. Absolutely brilliant maneuver on their part. The results was ineffective air power.

Their fighting force including women in front line infantry combat that was a freaking joke!

However, unlike Israel, we do not expect our women to fight on the front lines in the combat units like, Armor, Artillery or Infantry. What is the difference between the two nations. We have the manpower, training, mobility, and superiority that Israel does not. Our troops are well trained, especially in counterinsurgency. We simply have the best of everything to go to war. Unfortunately, we have a problem of getting out of them too!

Another important point that dip-sh!ts in Washington forgot, and something most people forget, including the troops, "hand-to-hand" combat which still exists to this day. Or perhaps everyone is under the misguided belief that the enemy cannot make close quarter contact with you on the battlefield. I am willing to bet some of our troops have already experienced this in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Women have no business period in the Infantry, Artillery or Armor units. It wasn't long ago that we found out that the female chopper pilot that went down during the Iraq War was raped after her capture and:

Jessica Lynch was brutally raped and sodomized in Iraq by the Iraqis. At first the military tried to cover it up, but for fear of being assassinated to silence her, Jessica Lynch went public with the truth that she was indeed brutally raped.

But as usual, dumb-asses in Congress want a more touchy-feely military that doesn't offend any group. So you get an idiot like Leon Penetta who served a couple of years and got out as a First Lieutenant (wow, he really sore through the ranks from Second Lieutenant to First Lieutenant - brilliant military achievement - Not!) lifting the ban for women in combat. So knee-jerk liberal idiots like this along with the ass-kissing Joint Chiefs of Staffs (who want another star or so.) give the green light for disaster. I have talked to both male and female troops in the past about this as a U.S. Army Sergeant, and both male and female soldiers back then were not too keen on the idea.

So why the change, special interest groups lobbying Congress for the change. And some members of Congress (Diane Feinstein) pushing the agenda. Why, it's discrimination to do otherwise. No common sense, just stupidity at its finest.

Putting women on the front line is nothing but pure stupidity. They cannot handle the stress of marching for miles with a 75lb pack on their back and they are going to jeopardize the safety of everyone in their group as the men try to cover for them and help them. Total BS.

Panetta is an idiot. The sooner he goes to the nut farm, the better. That's where he belongs. When he retires soon, he is going to go manage his walnut farm.

The Russians used women in the military during WW2 and they were mean!!

Rocco: I agree with most of what you wrote.

As a point of clarification, though, based on the extent of Jessica Lynch's injuries, and how the Iraqi doctors found her (fully-clothed), and the fact that she says that she doesn't have any recollection of being raped, the conclusion was that it was highly-unlikely that she was raped at all.

Although her book states that she was raped, upon further investigation you'll read other accounts that state that against Jessica's numerous objections, the author who co-wrote the book for her continued to insist they include it in the book until she finally relented, though she said later that she believed it was wrong since there was no proof of it, and she certainly didn't remember it happening.

It would seem that aside from her serious injuries, most of what the military tried to lead us to believe about Ms. Lynch was nothing more than gross exaggerations and lies.

Obama Biden & Hillary Are Scum

The Russians used women in the military during WW2 and they were mean!!

That's absolutely true but you left out one important fact. The Germans invaded Russian, and all able body Russians from 10 yrs old and older were required to stand and fight the invaders. Hence, the Russians were protecting their homeland and that is the reason why damn near everyone served on the front lines in the then U.S.S.R. The U.S. is not being invaded by a foreign power so that argument won't work in this case. The military has a high rate of rapes that are not publicly known. When I served, the public almost never heard the crap that went down on military installations or within the military ranks because it was kept hushed. Here is a classic example of what I am talking about. On one of the overseas installations I served on, two U.S. Army Chaplains were transfer back to the states because of pedophile activities. Mind you, they weren't kicked out of the military but sent back to the seminary in the states for "reeducation" and penance so they could eventually be reassigned to another installation and do the say sh!t all over again. Did the military inform the public that this sick sh!t goes on in their ranks, hell no! Read the shocking truth about how women have been treated, and then tell me that you still want them in line combat units?

• Comment is free

Series: On making change

Previous | Next | Index

A culture of coverup: rape in the ranks of the US military

For men, combat experience is the leading cause of PTSD. For women, it's sexual assault. This is the real 'war on women'

• Share 476
• inShare18
• Email

• • Naomi Wolf
  • guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 June 2012 16.36 EDT
  • Jump to comments (125)

A US Marine sergeant in Helmand province, Afghanistan in 2010. Photograph: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

A new documentary by director Kirby Dick, The Invisible War, about systemic rape of women in the military and the retaliations and coverups victims face, has won awards in many film festivals, and recently even triggered congressional response. The examples of what happens to women soldiers who are raped in the military are stunning, both in the violence that these often young women face, and in the viciousness they encounter after attacks.

In December 2005, for instance, Kori Cioca was serving in the US Coast Guard, and was raped by a commanding officer. In the assault, her jaw was broken. When she sought to move forward with her case, her own commanding officer told her that if she pursued the issue, she would face court martial for lying; her assailant, who admitted to the assault while denying that rape was part of it, was "punished" by being restricted to the base for 30 days and docked some pay.

Cioca now has PTSD, along with nerve damage to her face. She is fighting the Veterans Administration (VA) to receive approval for surgery she urgently needs; she has also become a plaintiff in a class action civil suit against the Department of Defense.

''He didn't rape me because I was pretty or because he wanted to have sex with me; he raped me because he hated me," she asserts.

The numbers around the level of sex assault in the military are staggering. There is so much of this going on in the US military that women soldiers' advocacy groups have created a new term for it: military sexual trauma or MST. Last year, there were 3,158 cases of sexual assault reported within the military. The Service Women's Action Network notes that rape is always under-reported, and that a military context offers additional hurdles to rape victims: the Department of Defense, they point out, estimates that these numbers are misleading because fewer than 14% of survivors report an assault. The DoD estimates that in 2010 alone, over 19,000 sexual assaults occurred in the military.

This will allow women to be assigned to select positions in ground combat units at the battalion level.

Sounds like they are not going to really be fighting unless someone screws up royally and the battalion HQ gets overrun.

I feel sorry for the terrorists, they have not seen fury , until they have to deal with a women during PMS!

oh shi*

WOmen:

Don';t you feel like you might have beeen tricked?

Yours,

Ronald Hussein Reagan

biggest mistake in history....men will die because of this....wait and see...

Men will die? Get your brain out of the freezer! Men will LIVE!

When bullets start flying there is no way I want any skirts around

Leon Panetta is a fool who must go

Biggest mistake in history was that YOU elected a racist TWICE into the White House... this is JUST some of the outcome of that mistake...

There is an old saying be careful what you wish for!

That is an old saying I often quote myself, and unless they're very strict about the select roles detail, you'll have a lot of women who train for combat but will never be deployable for combat because they'll have been medically discharged for orthopedic injuries long before that. Naturally, this means that the US taxpayer will be paying for their salary and expenses while they're in basic military training and advanced individual training or an occupational school, which is supposed to have a 'return on investment' being a trained, equipped, and good-to-go warrior. Instead, the usual result is going to be not a usable war fighter, but a veteran receiving medical care and prescription drugs (mostly pain killers) for many years afterwards.

Being engaged in warfare is one thing. Women have been doing it for a long time, in roles such as Military Police, which can involve a fair amount of shooting with rifles and machine guns, but MP's are fairly well supported and aren't humping all their worldly possessions in rucksacks on their backs! Infantry, especially 'light' infantry, frequently have to rely on only what they were able to bring with them, and that stuff gets heavy very quickly. Armor and Artillery are the other two combat arms branches, and in both cases, the routine - in training or actual combat - is a lot of heavy lifting. It's a thorough workout for young men, and maybe 30% and some of them end up with chronic injuries as a result. With women, it could be 80% or higher.

The main problem with women in combat arms is that they end up costing Uncle Sam a lot of money in the long term while producing little to no value for that money spent. If they can either make all the weapons, gear, and equipment far lighter than it currently is or else find ways where they don't actually have to do all the heavy lifting that combat arms soldiers typically do, fine. Either that, or change the way we fight wars so traditional ground troops will hardly be needed...

There is another old saying by a crusty Korean War Vet. They have yet to make a fighter bomber with a bayonet stud!

The idea that women can't pass the tests, and none have isn't true. When I enlisted in the Marine Corps a number of decades ago, it just happen to serendipitously come at a time when the Department of Defense was interested in seeing if women could pass infantry/combat training.They wanted to select some to go through the same rigorous combat training as male recruits at Parris Island, SC.

Two platoons of women were selected, with their training time altered to match that of males and we followed the exact same requirements. Of the 60 in my platoon, less than dozen washed out. Even the male recruits who could see us training were surprised.

So when I heard the DOD wanted more recent information on women handling combat training, it was nice to know the results our group of women had created had meant something after all. Especially because at the time, there was strong talk about moving females into combat positions after Vietnam. We women discussed how we would feel if that in fact were to happen. The choice came not to

I should clarify, the government chose not to.Though to a woman, each was willing if called to go.

Do I still feel women should serve in combat positions, up front?Do they have the right to defend our country, the same as men? I believe they do. But in a different way other than taking bullets directly.

There is a saying. They too serve, who only stand and wait.We have nothing to prove, and could well stand next to our men, as I personally know very well.Along with all those sister Marines who served beside me so long ago in training and passing those requirements. I fear no death, gladly would die for liberty and freedoms for others. But believe there is wisdom in other ways for women.

good point Mike, woman combat soldiers will have to learn to field strip tampons

Well here's the thing. In general I support this, BUT it is true that the standards have been listed seperately. The body fat % to be considered fit is different (I'm gathering part of the rationale is that breasts have a lot of fatty tissues in them, and there is a concession to biology on this), but the requirements for running are also different. The speed which men are required to run is greater, to pass the requirements, then that required by women.

I agree that able bodied individuals shouldn't be flattly denied, but lowering the test requirements is something they need to address. The standards should be the same, and there should be no exception because.... What having these exceptions suggests is that they're made because "we don't believe you could do it without them, so we're going to make it easier". If women can train to the same degree and meet the same requirements, then do away with the seperate set of requirements. Prejudice can exist in more then one form (you can serve here or not); and giving a lower standard (which is already occuring as many have noted) with these physical fitness exams is another form of it. If we want to get right down to it, these self same individuals shoudl see only being required to meet a lesser standard, to get the same job, with the same duties/requirements, to be a little bit belittling. Is it so hard to apply the same standard and allow those in who CAN meet it? This would mean everyone for these roles would have to meet the same standards and take the same test as men. They'd train the same, etc...

On another note, the flip side to this is that men do have to sign up with selective service when between the ages of 18 and 25. Failure to do so would deny one the right to financial aid, with other penalties applied. It's sorta mote with a volunteer only military of the last several decades, with the draft being rather unlikely. But if what some would talk about is fairness, then it would only be fair that the requirements and responsibilities is equally shared, along with the rights. This means that females ages 18-25 should also have to register with selective service, and the possibility of being drafted should be the same, as it is with males. Equality with requirements should go hand in hand with equality with rights and liberties. It isn't really equal if the rights come without the same responsibilities.

Oh, and as to what Tigerj was saying up above, I can attest to that. When I was in college we had a lab TA who was formerly in the military. She could engage in all the same jokes as guys, and belch with the best of them. Many females who have been in the military are not the stereotypical idea that many hold of women in general...

Easy access battle fatigues?

Your thinking is very sweet. Of course, if were still in, I'd be completely pissed.

Right, the Joint Chiefs have never served in the military or anything.

The Joint Chiefs - like all of the generals and admirals - will tell the politicians what they want to hear. They have no intention of going against the flow - thatmight damage their careers. Ask those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan - the brass sells out the troops in the field without blinking an eyelash if they believe it will please a higher ranking officer or the civilian political overlords.

Proletarian-856324, are you sure you are not thinking of the U.S. Congress, when you write - "...They have no intention of going against the flow - thatmight damage their careers..." ??

To Others, By the way - I've noticed some derogatory comments about Leon Panetta. I met Leon back in 1977, when he was running for Congress.

While he served in the U.S. Congress, he was one of the very few, possibly the only, U.S. member of Congress who actually returned his allocated but unused money to the U.S. Treasury... !! For example, he did not buy new office furniture and drapes for his office. He got by with second hand furniture. His thriftiness saved the taxpayers a boatload of money.

I know Leon Panetta is a person of wisdom, honesty, integrity and high ethics.

That's one of my fears, watch her fellow war buddies have to stand by and watch or hear their female get the crap rapped out of her see how that wears on them. one women here in the office thought what of when they are on their period where are they changing the santitary napkins

News flash: men get tortured and raped too. Women who choose a combat role know full well what can happen. Moreover, modern warfare has changed. Even women and men who are not in combat roles can be captured by the enemy and can be held, killed, raped, tortured etc.

Menstruation is easily controlled by birth control. There are plenty of birth control pills that allow women to skip menstruation altogether.

While your coworker may still use a pad, most modern women use tampons. Again, the menstruation issue can be easily controlled with birth control pills.

If you don't think/realize that is already a technique used on men then you are mistaken. Women who chose these rolls do so knowing the risks they take. I for one will respect their judgment.

Like I said it my opinion and I earned that right

Yes, you have an opinion, but it doesn't mean you're right.

You already stated you are old fashioned. That also means your way of thinking.

Also, tell your office co worker that they invented tampons decades ago and birth control can eliminate or greatly minimize menstruation.

Ask her where a man goes when he has to pinch off a loaf in battle. She asked an ignorant question since men in combat have to tend to personal needs too.

Dudes, have any of you guys been in combat before...have you seen women fight hand to hand...have you guys ever felt the fear of death so close that you can whisper to it--and say no not today? All these issues about torture and rape during captivity, will happen if the combatants allow it to happen--worst of all you may lose ammo during a fire fight, and that creates stress..

How do we all handle stress, are we all good at it??? What was the height of death by suicide among military combatants?? Have we found a way out of that yet?? Leon P. (no accent this time) thought it's that easy.

Ask her where a man goes when he has to pinch off a loaf in battle.

Well, women have to do that as well, along with their "female" problems. Besides, people can hold a "loaf" if they have to. If you had to and then were fired upon, I'm pretty sure you'd forget you had to go (unless it slipped out).

News flash: men get tortured and raped too.

Ha. Raped? How often do you think hetero enemies are going to rape men? The women would obviously be at greater risk there. Also, women are much more emotional than men. That torture bit should be interesting for them.

How often do you think hetero enemies are going to rape men?

Considering that rape is more about power than sex...

Those that support sending women into combat are absolutely clueless as to what this really means. We keep hearing that they are serving on the front lines in combat units. There is only one problem with that statement, they are not engaging in actual combat but perform patrols and guarding sites. The women are not to my knowledge standing should to shoulder with a grunt who goes out on a night ambush, or assaulting a position being held by the enemy or any kind of active combat fighting on the ground. Yes they may come under fire, and they may get hit by indirect fire or step on an anti-personnel mine or run over with their vehicle onto any other type of IED but so does the cook; they are not in active combat, unless they are flying jets or choppers. This female gun-ho crap is nothing but smoking mirrors from the White House and ass-kissing brass in the Pentagon. Yes their convoys are attack and blown up but so are the rest of the units personnel and vehicles going down a country road. You not fighting a conventional military but a band of radical religious guerrillas who would love to get their hands on you female ass. And if you think these animals will behave themselves when they capture your ass, think long and hard on it. You won't be yelling huraawh afterwards but more or less please shoot me!

Remember, Jessica Lynch was carried from the ambush site and taken to a secret location; gang raped and sodomized while she was near death at the time. Even a butch lesbian would be gang raped by these freaking animals. All this macho crap that women can hang is totally bull@!$%#. You're not built the same or treated the same in training, combat or prisoner of war. Your body would trick you into believing you can hang for awhile, but time has a way of exacting revenge on it when it is not used to certain physical activity. Men have strong frames, ie., backs, shoulders and legs. And just like anything else in this world it will break down. The biggest three mistakes the military made was abolishing the WAC's, having males to train with females in basic and secondary (AIT) training, and ending the draft. Women do not belong in combat. Israel tried it and it failed, check the last war they had if you think I am full of BS. Hezbollah handed them their ass on a platter in 2006.

Standards were lowered decades ago to allow women into the Military... physical readyness test to get in or to continue serving is 75% of the LOWEST male standard (which is 75%).

So, in order for a female to be able to join the Military, she ONLY has to be 75% in physical shape as the lowest standards of men.

SEAL training for women LMAO

No, that "increase" is actually the Bush tax reductions expiring as intended from the get-go. Your taxes did not really increase - your tax break expired, and now your tax rate is back to level it was a few years ago. Learn to read all of the news each day, not just the stuff that appeals to your vanity.

mellen,

Even though it is not relevant it is the payroll tax expiration which was a President Obama initiative

No !!! Not Obama he would'nt lie , welcome to reality , it's just the beginning . Like the saying goes , You ain't seen nothing yet .

Why would you HAVE to say this is a good idea? From a front line soldiers view, how is this good? Allowing substandard soldiers to watch my back?

You, like ANYONE that voted for that racist in the White House, are a fool...

I'm pretty much guessing if there was a 100 pound MALE cop, the result would have been the same. And yes, women CAN fight in hand-to-hand combat.

Men are stronger because they have more mucsle mass, psysiologically men are designed to be braun, utilitarian part of the human equation. So a 100 pound real man (not a transexual, have to clarify that now a days) and a 100 real woman are not going to have equal physical strength (not that there aren't strong women out there). It's just a biological reality and it doesn't mean women are less than men for that reason. Just like men are not able to carry a fullterm infant and push it out of his body just a fact of life! Men and women are designed to different purposes equally as important to our survival as a species.

Transsexual men still have the male make up. Being transsexual doesn't change your muscle mass. Do a little more research hunny ;)

Also I'm not sure why people aren't happy for these fierce, strong, and courageous women who have decided to do this. I for one deem them as incredible and I definitely see them as role models. They know the consequences and are willing to die for their country just like the men are. And their country is OUR country too. Instead of being completely pessimistic for these women, we should be proud and supportive.

What happened to support our troops?

A Transexual man would be a female to male (born female and surgically reassigned as a male) so would not have the same pysiology as a real man.

Beth, All things being equal, height & weight, training & knowledge, the man will win. We are built for fighting, women not so much. Bones are thinner and easier to break on females & their muscles tend to be weaker, meaning less force projected against an opponent.

cawing - A female to male transsexual can get close to a man's muscle mass using steroids and testosterone. Just look at Chaz Bono. Ok, gals, there's your fix!

I just couldn't stop looking at that pudgy face. Or the woman in the back adjusting her her helmet for the photo OP.

B.S. They are already payed for combat pay. Just by being in theater, you are payed combat pay.

Stacy - you need to get your facts right .

Ya, they all do get combat pay. Also, they do not serve in what you call "forward" positions since you aren't too good with terminology we'll leave it at that. The reason why women get blown up and ambushed over there is because we are basically fighting terrorists.... they are sneaky folks who don't fight. And our military is not allowed to go hunt them down out of the homes and coffee shops. They all are doing the job well over there, both the men and women.

I don't know about that! The best person in MY unit at coming up with ways to make MREs edible was not me (the only woman) .. but one of my sergeants! Funny thing, he could do wonders with an MRE ... and couldn't cook!

What? Women can't cook! Hell, I've known a bunch of women who didn't know the difference between a frying pan and stew pot! (like my ex-wife...she could "cook" food....but we sure did have to eat a lot of pizza)...

But they can shoot. Still, shooting is only one small part of what it is to be an Infantryman.

I sure do wish we would have had women in our unit back in desert strorm. It gets mighty lonely when its all men. I remember those that did have women in theirs talking about how nice it was to be able to get laid. That was the longest 8 months in my life.

Coffins with female soldiers have been "hitting" Dover since the Desert Storm. Reality is already here.

Women are already dying. Women have already returned in coffins. At least, now they have the option of doing it what they are already doing in the open.

Women are intelligent - they know what it means to serve in combat roles. I'm not in the military, and even I know what it means. I applaud women who choose to potentially sacrifice their lives so that I can live mine freely, the same way I applaud men who do the same.

Women have the same right that men have. They should be afforded the same chance to choose a combat role if they meet the requirements.

The coffins of female service members have already been hitting Dover for the last 10 years, and guess what, we've already had female POW's.

As of April 2012 - 139 female military members have been killed in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The number is not current.

Over 800 have been wounded....have a chat with recently elected Freshman Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, Iraq War vet. The Congresswoman served as a US Army helicopter pilot and suffered severe combat wounds, losing both of her legs and damaging her right arm. She was the first female double amputee from the war. She continues to serve as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Illinois National Guard, along with her husband, Major Bryan W. Bowlsbey and fellow Iraq War veteran. Bet she has some thoughts on the issue.

And how many thousands of males have been killed compared to less than 200 women?

Look, until the ERA amendment passes, men will ALWAYS be treated unequally by courts in family affairs. And, if it had passed, women would ALREADY be in combat units. We are a long way from equal rights!

It's about time that female soldiers who are ALREADY in combat can get the promotions they deserve. This wasn't about women being in combat. They ARE in combat. It cleared the way for those soldiers to be able to get the same promotions as male soldiers who are doing the SAME THiNG.

Witchking...the loss of any member of our military brings me sadness - it's a loss of our fellow countrymen. Our son served, my nephew, my brother, both my mom and dad, my husband's father and his nine (9) brothers (uncles).

Rest assured, those numbers of female military killed will increase with this turn of events. Almost sounds as if that will make you happy.

Brian, as a 15 year vet myself ... I agree with you. I do NOT think standards should be lowered, but that women should be allowed to compete for the positions on an EQUAL basis.

There are a great many strong, athletic women who could handle the position and want to serve.

Wanting and doing are two different things.

First of all, Thank you Brian and Beth for your service to our country which continually enables some of the most moronic posts I have read today.

I completely agree with both of you and your assessments. Who better to hear this from than two who have actually served and whose comments are posted with knowledge and understanding of the mission that has yet to even be implemented pending further studies and outcomes of those studies.

i totaly agree after serving 9 years in the us army rangers and a avid historianas long as the standards are not lowered and all are treated the same they have my vote all people need to do is look back at history and it will show you the results look at the russians of the second world war look at the celts of the europe . and if you realy want to get a good look look at the most comfirmed kills of any sniper in history YES its a woman from finland im going to step out on the line and give a generalized statement ( i know it will bite me in the a#$ but in stressful situations women in general think more rationaly they are just as physical and just as violent as men it just takes a little longer for the fuse to burn but when it does look out because they will walk every step of the way in any condition as the men at their side and also under stress the monthly will stop look at the history im not blowing hickory or oak smoke its there just look for it

good luck ladies i have faith just as history shows

Brian: You are partially right. The sniper with the most confirmed kills was from Finland (709) but he was a man (Simo Haya). maybe his small size(5'3") made you think he was a women. Russia deployed 2000 woman snipers during WW2 but over 1300 were dead within a yr. but one (Lyudmia Pavlichenko) did have 309 kills.

Would really like to talk to you about your time in the Rangers.

What is this 1366? Get a clue.

Joe

That was a stupid comment...

Just saying.

Do you know what a tampon is?

Joe, obviously you have no clue whatsoever about menstruation. There is no blood dripping down legs or smells that attract the enemy. Perhaps you are mistaking human beings with sharks?

Menstruation can be easily controlled via birth control. Many means of birth control available today allow women to avoid periods altogether. Additionally, most women with regular periods wear tampons and there is no blood drip involved.

Menstrual blood smells no different than any other, because it is simply blood. Menstruation occurs when an egg is not fertilized within a certain window. The lining of the uterus dissolves, thus detaching and breaking the small blood vessels that would otherwise be feeding the new placenta if the egg had been fertilized. There is very little tissue in the blood. Why should it smell any different than any other human blood?

You guys do realize that Joe the idiot was just posting his comment as a way to get you all going? Sometimes it is best to ignore such blatant ignorance than to feed them. If left unfed, they will die, and isn't that the best result we could hope for in regards to Joe?

Women do have some pysiological realities that would put them at a disadvantage to their male soilders. Just a fact of life, can't avoid biology. I.e. less physical strength, less stamina and face it girls the hormone roller coaster!?!?! Come on! There have been some renowned lady warriors in history and women have been in combat. Heck look at the broads in the workplace that is a constant battle ground! But ladies really, do you really want to be in the middle of no where, with no plumbing, heat or electricity for weeks at a time carring 60 pounds worth of gear and seeing your comrads be blown up? Face it it's male domaine! And frankly men have been so emasculated in the past 50 years especially during this radical social engineering administration called Obama, is there any purpose left for the men? If men can be men and can act on their natures I think everyone would be happier all around men and women!

Cawing Crow: Women actually have better endurance for long distance racing (50-100 miles) than men.

Actually, having served in both REMF units(4 years MI) and as an infantryman for 17.5 years (or so...), I can tell you that the personal hygeine thing is really a big issue. Further, I'd really like to see a woman hump an m240B or a 60mm mortar with full combat gear for about 25 miles (like what we did in the Infantry) once a quarter or so for a couple of years like the 11Boos and 11Chucks do before I think they should allow such "politicization" of the US Combat arms MOSs.
Yeah...it's all political.
I've never seen a woman hump a 210lb man using the fireman's carry through a swamp wearing full combat gear...but I've done it.
I've seen 1 woman run with us up a mountain to conduct a counterambush (training in Korea, up those freaking yama's)...we were out of breath a little...she was in tears but hung in there.
As far as uberspecialties like Snipers...well, women can shoot. They can shoot REAL GOOD.
But it takes a lot to select soldiers for the highly competetive positions such as scout and sniper...physically gruelling and sometimes physically damaging training and competition just to be considered, such as Ranger school.
But hey...there are always exceptions to the rule...
Nonetheless, the physical hygeine requirements of a woman are much higher than with men. Go a couple of weeks in the bush without a shower and performing physically demanding training and you'll see exactly what Joe is talking about; the smell of the men requires one to be inured to such stench, but the ammoniac smell of a woman who needs a bath...
Well, any thoughts of sex are immediately replaced with revulsion and the desire to retch...
(yeah...I've been around women who haven't showered for a week or so and were too 'shy' to wash that nasty crack with men around)
Men are much more uninhibited in regards to brief periods of nudity...such a mentality is required of women as well.
Hell...the whole hygeine thing can be managed by tough cleanliness standards.
My concern is in the stopping of natural menstrual cycles...
It has been shown to cause bone loss and premature osteoperosis in women. Men do not have this particular issue with their hormones. Infantry training is extremely tough and merciless...many soldiers (male) can't keep up due to injuries sustained as a result.
But hey...as long as women are allowed to beat the @!$%# out of someone who makes a sexist remark...

Here's one thing; I refuse to carry some woman's rags...we had a problem finding enough room for all the tampons, maxipads, and other paraphenalia in my MI units when we were deployed. I sure and hell ain't carrying those things for some infantry split-tail. She's on her own.

While carring a 100 pound pack? Get a grip! Why are women so defensive when bringing up just a fact of life. Men are biologically designed for phsyical stength and endurance period! Part of the evolutionary equation which was essential for the survival of the species.

Served eight years in the Military, Combat Arms and ADA... never ONCE did ANYONE call 11 Bravos or 11 Charlies "11Boos or 11Chucks..." sounds like more made up crap to prove a point.

Put the controller down and stop play COD...

But will agree with you... a few days without a shower and the female soldiers were more... noticable... and not in a good way...

Hey, cawingcrow...
the Libs don't care about facts. Facts just get in the way of an agenda. It looks like we may be FORCED to deal with this trainwreck.
and the whole nonsense about "fast" promotions in Combat Arms is a joke! Hell...for most infantrymen, promotions are no faster than in any other MOS. In fact, the whole "faster promotion" crap is a lie.
You only get promoted faster if you are a high performer! Which means if women want to compete for rank in the Infantry...they've got to endure things like Ranger School and the rest...and out compete their male counterparts...a tall, if not impossible, order indeed.

i hear ya....from the old school here,womens bodies were NOT made like men.when i was in my 20's i used to roof,lay carpet,build trusses...,& i kept up...now in my later years,i really regret it.,my body is paying for it....there is a reason there is a difference in genders...in the human role & the creature roles...

Sadden America 2012

You lose.

Further, your inane argument has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I was toeing-the-line when you were playing with the @!$%# in your diapers.

Nonetheless, you had the stones to toe-the-line with the rest of us when the majority of Americans couldn't be bothered...

You might be shocked to know this, but not everyone who posts comments about their military experience online is lying. (11B40B4, retired)

Joe-3086097 - Is that short for Joan?

"What happens when a reconnaissance patrol is out on a capture and kill mission, and the women give away their position to the enemy because menstrual blood is dripping down their legs, and the smell is enough to take your head off?"

Every woman is different Joe... I don't think it's fair of you to assume that your menstrual blood smell is indicative of that of other women.

Then again, you think recon goes on "Capture and Kill" missions when one OR the other is far more likely in the normal human world.

"Capture and Kill"??? That's not one one of the missions of an Infantry Recon squad...

Let's see...there's
Conduct a Area Recon
Conduct a Zone Recon
Conduct a Point Recon
Conduct a Route Recon

Conduct a Screen
Conduct Long Range Precision Fire....

Nope...no "Capture and Kill"...

Sounds to me like your PL watched too many Rambo films...

who really cares fool. sounds like you have a pathetic life patrick.

G.I. Jane: Excuse me, Mr. Taliban sir?

Could you please hold your fire for just a couple of minutes while my bitches pull these stinky bloody tampons out of their cooters and replace them with nice clean lemon scented ones?

Even though I am female I think any woman who expects to go to the front line "equally" with men, is brain dead and very poorly misinformed by the Feminists who think we are "equal" to men.

We are NOT equal! There have been two laws passed in the US, which delineate women's rights. The problem is that too many females today leave off the full titles. The early '60s law is "Equal Opportunity" in the work force. No, I am not "equal" to a man, and thank goodness. We are not alike and in my opinion were never intended to be.

We are not opposite. We are not lessor. We are not better, nor worse. Different? Of course. But I add... I think nature has established that we blend.

Additionally, women fight differently from men. Does the Pentagon expect women to go through training for front line fighting? I doubt it and so I think the Penetta headline is misleading, or I hope so.

Of course we should help our country within the Military if that is appropriate to our talents, or any job, for that matter. But I do not subscribe to turning us or each other into Little Men. Don't get in our soldiers' way!

I am not an Amazon (they were a narrow and primitive culture in the development of mankind). I want a chance to be the best which I, a woman, can be... as a woman... in our modern world.

Fembots? No! Feminine? YES!