E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDefense Secretary Leon Panetta's decision to lift the 20-year ban on women serving in combat will open some 237,000 combat-related positions to women. Initially, women will be assigned to combat communications, logistics and drivers. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has decided to clear the way for women to serve in many combat positions in the U.S. armed forces, a senior defense official told NBC News on Wednesday afternoon.
The Pentagon chief will announce on Thursday that he is eliminating the direct ground combat exclusion — the Department of Defense policy that excluded women from assignment to units below the brigade level if the unit would be engaged in direct combat.
This will allow women to be assigned to select positions in ground combat units at the battalion level, opening approximately 237,000 individual jobs to women across service branches, including 5,000 positions for female Marines in ground combat elements.
"I support it. It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in anticipation of the announcement.
"We are moving in the direction of women as infantry soldiers," one senior defense official said.
Longstanding opponents of lifting the ban on women in combat lambasted the move as a show of "political correctness."
"The point of the military is to protect our country," said Penny Nance, President and CEO of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, a conservative lobbying group. "Anything that distracts from that is detrimental. Our military cannot continue to choose social experimentation and political correctness over combat readiness. While this decision is not unexpected from this administration, it is still disappointing."
Panetta, who is expected to leave his position as Defense Secretary in February, will call on the military services to study whether it is possible to open all jobs to women, and the services must come back with their individual plans and recommendations by May 15, a senior defense official said. He will call for all changes to be in place, and women serving in the new roles by Jan. 1, 2016.
But a senior defense official who spoke to NBC News said they expect exceptions to remain. Elite Special Operations positions in Navy SEALS, Army Rangers, and Delta Force were likely to remain closed to women, the official said, while the Army is likely to open up jobs for female pilots in the elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.
Karim Sahib / AFP - Getty Images file
Female soldiers from the US 1st Cavalry on patrol in Baghdad's al-Jihad quarter in this Mar. 21, 2004, file photograph.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., called the decision "historic."
"In fact, it's important to remember that in recent wars that lacked any true front lines, thousands of women already spent their days in combat situations serving side-by-side with their fellow male servicemembers," said Murray, who heads the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.
In November, a group of women in the military and the non-profit American Civil Liberties Union sued the Pentagon over the policy of excluding women from combat roles. Their complaint argued that they were already serving in combat roles, but not getting recognized for it.
So far, 152 women have died while deployed in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and at least 958 have been wounded in action.
"This is really the implementation of a policy that has been a reality for women for years," one senior defense official said.
According to the most recent Defense numbers, there are 1.4 million active duty members of the military, and nearly 15 percent of them are women.
This new military-wide rule — distinct from a law — will replace the 1994 policy memo barring women in combat roles, which was signed by then-Secretary Les Aspin.
NBC News correspondent Kelly O'Donnell and NBC staff writer Kari Huus and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Related:
Female veterans cheer new era: ‘It’s about time!’
Women in the infantry? Forget about it, says female Marine officer
Leave a Comment:
So does this mean women have to register for selective service?
Meantime, this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jarrett-if-theres-one-thing-we-should-all-agree-its-protecting-women-violence_697566.html
Never before have we had such an administration that speaks out of both sides of its mouth and a fawning media that doesn't report the facts.
Whatever Troll.
Stay with me here: Anyone remember ALIENS from 1986?
Remember Vasquez? Ok, so that's Hollywood, but honestly, its plausible. If women want to serve in combat, why not? However, they should meet the same standards and that's a big part of the resistance by male soldiers to the concept.
If they can and do meet those standards (which I believe they will), I encourage them to serve in any job they want to.
"Hey Vasquez, you ever been mistaken for a man?"
"No, have you?"
LOL. Good one.
The truth is that women have been in combat roles for many years and it is time to give them the respect they are due. If you are driving a truck in Afghanistan or flying a helicopter, you are in the combat zone. Many women are in these positions and deserve the same respect as a man doing the same job. We are in the 21st century and if women want to serve in combat jobs, then more power to them. There are any number of countries on the planet whose women serve without restriction. People's objections tend to be that they can't handle the image of women being blown apart or the issue of rape as an interrogation tool by the enemy. Well, those are situations those women are prepared to face just as the young men face the possibility of death, maiming, or torture. They will all train to the highest level and face whatever they have to in order to allow you to enjoy your cozy little lives. As for the possibility of sexual harassment etc, I believe that will decrease when more women are serving in all areas and gaining the respect they are due! I am the wife of a retired USAF aviator and disabled veteran of Viet Nam and Desert Storm and I have always believed this ban was unwarranted and needed to be lifted. I support Secretary Panetta 100%!!
I would never do it. I'm sure I would be raped.
and killed
Then be like most of the rest .. don't volunteer.
I WONT! because i would be viciously raped again and again and again. it would never end
The issue here is to give you that choice--serve or don't serve but don't have disdain for those who wish to do so. Women have been serving and dying in combat now for many years. This allows them better access to fields where promotions are more accessible and where they can choose to train in the fields they are interested in. I do not personally have interest in serving but I spent over 25 years as a military wife and I believe very strongly in the woman's right to choose and attempt whatever training she wants to.
This is one of those times were I can say I'm proud of my country. I feel truly fortunate to live in a time were the rights of many is starting to be recognized. Cheers to the 2nd Civil Rights Movement.
Once a strong proud nation, now a weak , leaderless,Godless skeleton of a power...
I think some folks need to read and view some videos about places like Bastogne, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Viet Nam, etc...
As long as men have mothers, women should not be in combat.
Any body thinks combat should be opened to women I highly recommend you read this book With the Old Breed by EB Sledge.
Or watch the HBO special, "The Pacific". Sledgehammer's story is one of those featured. Considering Sledge's combat experiences, I find that him becoming a college biology professor rather unusual.
I was a sailor, but have the highest respect for the Army and the USMC.
In a perfect world, no woman or man should ever be in combat.
In the real world, however, I'm sure my grandmothers would have gladly exchanged a combat role for the 4 years they spent in a concentration camp.
Women are not shrinking violets. Women have fought on the front lines for millennia. Women have been dying in battle for millennia.
We are not in a perfect world and war will probably never end!
This implies that mothers of sons should accept the potential deaths of those sons but their daughters should be protected. I have news for you--mothers don't see the difference in terms of a child in a coffin. They are proud of and love that child regardless of gender. Any woman who wishes to serve should have full access to that opportunity in the same way men do. The danger they may face is terrible regardless but it is also the job they choose to do and they are fully aware of the risks.
Way to polarize it linda.
Not sure I understand why my comment polarizes anything. I am simply saying that a mother loves her child regardless of gender and her loss will be the same if that soldier comes home in a coffin. I believe men and women should be able to pursue their dreams regardless of whether that dream ventures into areas traditionally viewed as suited to the opposite gender. Not all men or all women want to serve in the military. Not all men or all women are interested in the more dangerous aspects of military service. Those who "fly a desk" are a crucial part of the total package. The issue is that it is right and fair that all men and women have the opportunity to have that choice.
It's about time for women to take combat roles.
Since women claim for equal right as men, let them fight and no more privileges.
The standards are already lower! I have to do 77 push-ups to max the APFT and they have to do 42! I have to run a 13 minute 2 mile while they only have to run a 15:36! I have regularly carried over 150 lbs in the desert. How many women can do this? I have met 2 women on Earth that would be able to carry me, in kit, if I were to go down; kitted out around 280 lbs. You can tell my wife that I died so officers and politicians could create their legacies.
You find a woman that can max out the men's PT test, carry their body weight day in and day out and not worry about not showering for weeks on end and don't mind sharing shower facilities with a couple dozen other 'guys' and take the fight to the enemy, I will welcome her with open arms.
When your ass is taking on heavy fire...all that matters is she pull her weight and put finger to trigger...You never know...It may be you who needs saving...and a woman could possibly be the one doing the saving.....
Thanks for the combat tip. It also matters that she can carry me with my kit on at around 280 lbs. Oh and her own 100-150 lbs of equipment.
@akhalteke I'm with you I have never met a female soldier that could handle the SAW yet alone the M240B on a dismounted movement and for all you guys that think it can be done and say they are just as tough the ROAD MARCHES don't lie!
Some of you MEN can't handle it. LOL. Way to go Sarah and Beth!!!
Neither can Sarah and Beth. When they have completed the training to the same standard as I have, I will recant. Until then, it stands.
Bet they could give you a run for your money son...like I said...some men can't handle it :)
Well Dad, as a current 18D, I highly doubt that. Like I said. If they think they have what it takes to make it on my team and they can make the standards, let em come. 20 to 1 says this is all a load of braggadocio with no follow through. Ask those ladies if any of them can score extended scale on the mens' APFT.
How would you know?
The answer is, you don't.
I actually did better in basic training than some of the men I went through with ... and I outshot all of them! I was also a college athlete ... and they were not. So it was logical. And there are many more athletic women now than then, so I feel there are many more capable of meeting the standards.
BTW: You DO have a point in a way ... I could NOT meet the standards now ... I'm rather too old and gray.
Were you in 11B OSUT? No. Its like comparing apples to oranges.
No, as a female soldier I was not allowed to undertake that challenge.
Equality does not mean everyone has to be the same. In American we have this false notion that in order to be "equal" everyone has to be the same. The Feminist movement thought that in order for women to be "equal" they had to be the same as men, dress like mem, act like men do the same jobs as men. A woman's traditional function was just as great if not more spectacular then the man's traditional function. What is a more a awesome role then to be barers of life and raise the children and nurture the home and family? A woman's value is not going against her inherent nature but to exalt her inherent nature! I love a man who is big and strong and who is a defender and protecter of the family and home! We have all been so confused about our natures lately, women don't want to be at home and nurture, and men want to marry other men and manufacture babies using donor eggs and rent a womb or some such absurdity? I am wondering what happened to my wholesome America? I long for the old days when real men wanted to marry real women and have children with real women and where women were comfortable in their natures and did not feel the need to impersonate men. Granted there are always exeptions to the rule but why must entire instituations i.e. marriage and the military have to change in oder to cater to a small minority who refuses to go with the grain? A Society is not about catering to accomodate a few! A Society's function is about making sacrifices that will benefit the majority! So all you radical feminist and pro gay rights groups just stop and think about it your being awefully selfish!
It is sad when a nation sends it's women out to fight for us. Where are the true men that will stand up and say the it is the role of men to protect women and children. Liberals call themselves progressives I say they are backwards. What they stand for is calling what is right wrong and what is wrong right.
It's ridiculous...Women are Nuturers not Warriors...It's bad enough we have to teach our young men to kill, Please Lord not Women Too...It's really funny, ya know...Wars have never solved anything, yet it seems to always be the ultimate solution to every problem. When In the Hell Are We All Going To Learn To Live Together as One Human Race all Occupying the same Planet and all really wanting the samething. I guess when the almighty dollar ceases to be our Idol...Greed and the Love of Power is our Biggest Problem...How about waging War On That!!!
Not every woman wants to stay home, cook, and pop out screaming infants for a life.
I value the differences, the strengths and weaknesses between a man and a woman. I also believe woman's intellect is equal to man, have the same abilities to be in position of power and perform well. But I also believe a woman is more nuturing, and a man feels more comfortable with a skill saw in his hand. A woman will generally warm up to a romantic drama, while a man would soon rather watch a good ball game. And yes it is born in a males DNA to protect women, and to fight when called upon. The differences are what is the basis for the attraction between male and females.
What I am trying to understand, why are women not satisfied as having the same rights, opportunities and liberties as a man (which they so rightfully deserve). Why not appreciate, embrace, and be confident in one self with the gender differences. Why satisfied only when.....a woman becomes a man?
Panetta is an EFFEN IDIOT!!!
I just hope the my son's life never has to rely on that cute little girl in the picture to drag him out of the line of fire. On the other hand, she would stop a bullet as well as a guy.
Why? Would the shame of a woman saving your son's ass just hurt too much?
BAD IDEA I couldnt statnd being in a infrantry unit i cant understand why a women would even want to be in one.
Jer Farmski yours is the only opinion here that counts, because you have been there. God bless you and anyone willing to put themselves in harms way, male or female.
Much of these anti-women in combat positions are stupid. Women are capable of doing much of what men do....military is no exception. Many of these women can handle combat that many of us internet armchair politicians take for granted. We hardly feel this way when it's women police/secret service etc... So let them continue to join the military and see combat........
JS in SD actually made me laugh out freakin' loud? Sir, did you take any courses on women's health issues because if you did, you need to get your money back. WOW!
A woman's place is in the home, not on the battlefield.
Women are just as capable to pull a trigger as any man. The only real difference is, men tend to be stronger physically. Strength has less and less importance in modern warfare. There are lots of jobs that only require eyes and a twitchy trigger finger. And guts.
It will be interesting to see how they hold up comparable to men. From a psychological standpoint.
Women should also be required to register for selective service. It should be the duty of every citizen.
If women should be equal in all things. Sign the petition.
You can use the address below to view it.
ttp.//wh.gov/yV1P
The women who decide to enlist are in all likelihood fit for front-line duty. My concern would be for the women who would never consider the military, should there come a time when the draft is reinstated. What happens then? They're not going to force my daughter into combat. They have a better chance of seizing my firearm than forcing my daughter into combat. Of course the way this country is going, kicking down doors to seize firearms is not a stretch. That will be followed by heterosexuals being forced to wear special patches identifying themselves as such. Then special camps to segregate them.
I was with you until you started going all nutso about taking your guns and wearing patches....REALLY.....?????
Paranoid much?
In a draft people are tested medically, and anyone unfit gets a 4f or whatever. your daughter is probably safe.
I dont agree with the draft. No one should be forced to go to war by a government. Defending your homeland is a given. Sending people overseas is quiet another.
Great news! If they can meet the same requirements as male combat troops there should be no reason to deny them combat duty.
They already aren't held to the same standard. What makes you think that they will be when it comes to placement in a combat arms MOS?
Wow cawingcrow, how enlightened of you. Just because staying at home and being a wife works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone.
If a woman can meet the rigorous requirements to be in combat (come already are in combat areas) then they should have the right to do that. If a man wants to stay home and raise a child he should have a right to do that. Why does everyone have to place people into neat little envelopes and label them. DIVERSITY! Try it sometime and then I will welcome you to the 21st century!
Your idea of a utopian society is going really well so far fubar77! Just wait and see! People are so arrogant now a day, like I am smarter and more wise than what is inherently true and has been practiced since the beging of mankind.
Actually, the society of the last 40 or so years has been the greatest and most prosperous in the history of mankind. (Scientific and medical advances, living standards, equality, etc)
Secondly, nothing in a society's culture is 'inherently true'. What is good and beneficial for one society is not necessarily good for another. Thirdly, if things in society were inherently true because they were 'practiced since the beginning of mankind' you wouldn't be on here, you wouldn't be here discussing this (most ancient societies didn't let women join men in a discussions as their opinion was of no value), you wouldn't have any say in the matter, since woman couldn't vote or engage in politics, and you would have been married off to someone of your parents choosing in exchange for some property or title.
So, be happy that things are not still be practiced as they were since the beginning of mankind and you are living in what you call our utopian society.