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:
Great! It's about time. I assume then, logically, that Congress will take the next step and require that all females shall now register for selective service too. Or are some animals more equall than others?
Probably not until theres a need for a draft since the force is currently all volunteer.
I don't care what reproductive organs they have. If they can do the job, let them do the job. If they can't, don't. There are women out there more physically capable than men, and there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to risk their lives for their country.
You don't even know what the job entails.
Heck, there are a number of men who can't do the job. "There are women out there more physically capable than men". Really? Do you even have a clue what the life of an infantryman is like?
No.
Jayzus but I hate arguing with a liberal.....facts are irrelevant to a progressive attempt to get votes....
Patrick--I'll readily admit that when I was assigned to the 508th PIR, there were women who were stronger and had more endurance than I. If you've watched the Olympics, you know that there are women who are stronger and have more endurance than some men who are currently in the infantry. If you think otherwise, then you may be the one ignoring facts.
Olympics? Still don't know any women who can kick my arse....(except maybe those Russian wieghtlifters...but they'd have to catch me first and I dont fight fair.)
There may be some Karate or Tae-Kwon-Do black belt out there that would kick my arse...If I fought fair...
There may be some track stars that could out run me...(but they wouldn't be able to kick my arse)...
and on the balance...(if you really want to be fair)...go find me a 210lb woman about my height (just to keep everything equal)...and have her try and kick my arse...
She'd lose.
Because I don't fight fair...and I have no qualms about hurting someone to accomplish a mission, even if it means tackling a woman, standing on her and putting my size 13s into her ribcage 20 or 30 times...
Because the enemy has no qualms about doing the same...
Patrick--And you think women would fight fair? When you make that assumption, you demonstrate that you're not in the real world. You think you could take out Muhammed Ali's daughter in her prime?
Patrick
I think that the average weight for a U S Marine infantry man would be 160-190. Could any one of them kick your arse?
Don't know, maybe you're just a ba ba ba ba daddddd ass.
I don't know about you two p*ssies...but there ain't a woman I've ever met who could go toe-to-toe with me.
But then, not all of us are "infantry" material...
As for the marines, singleup (and your comment is truly retarded, as US Marine Infantryman are not female)...let's just say it would be fun to watch.
I'm just saying.
Not all men make it through training. But lots do.
Women tend to be smaller and weaker. But not all of them. I have a feeling that, given the same sets of requirements, some will make it through.
We might end up with a front line combat force of 98% men and 2% women. But if those women can really go toe-to-toe with the men, why not let them?
If we keep the training and requirements at the same level, why not allow women who can meet them? Why forbid them from even trying?
If one reads this article carefully, as well as CNN's article, one discovers that all this is very preliminary. The CNN article and the report on NBC Nightly News indicate that women will be expected to meet the same physical and psychological standards as men. Further, today's action will call for studies to examine the feasibility of women in the combat arms below brigade level. So this announcement does nothing more than forestall a lawsuit while cementing the women's vote.
Beyond that, if you're opposed to the policy, vent away. It makes no difference. Obama is not running for re-election but does want to ensure that women stick with the Democratic party. Older white males or conservative younger white males aren't going to vote Democratic anyway. As the former chair of the Republican party has pointed out, African-Americans aren't going to vote Republican unless the Republican party changes its tune and as long as Sara Palin can accuse a black president of "shucking and jivin'" without the party calling her out on her racism, the party will not change its tune.
Good post.
The policy has been changed.
Implementation will occur in stages and by each branch according to it's own priorities.
Go ahead run in 2016 on a platform that includes stripping women of combat recognition for fighting, getting wounded and dying to protect your freedom. LOL We're playing Chess, you're playing checkers.
Support the Troops!
Bad post.
@Re Elelct Obama 2012 your not making any sense!
Why is it a bad post, do you ask?
Simply, like all "progressives"...you put blatant lies masquerading as "facts" in your argument.
"stripping women of combat recognition for fighting, getting wounded and dying..."
Exactly who, you lying sack of shyte, is calling for stripping women of their recognition so honorably deserved?
Freaking scumbag liberals....there is no cure for stupid and liberalism is a mental disease...
@Patrick
If conservatives run in 2016 on repealing this policy, it will be another nail in their election coffin.
By 2016 this policy will be in full force and many women will be serving official combat roles (some in infantry) or jobs that they could only hold as a direct result of their service in combat zones being recognized as combat.
If conservatives try to roll this back and deprive women of this recognition going forward from 2016, they are going to have a really big problem how they support the troops.
Anyhow, Old Vet...you should already know the truth...that the Pentagon has already done these studies, a number of times...
The last I remember hearing about was that just to get women who enlist to be equal to their male counterparts going to Fort Benning, GA. for OSUT, they'd have to have 6 months of an intensive weight training regimen...and by the end of OSUT, the males would still outstrip the women's performance due to the rapid ability of the male physique to quickly gain muscle mass and tone to adapt to the physical rigors of infantry training and combat. The cost of these weight training pre-courses, facilities, and cadre was quickly countered with the argument "why spend the money on this when we can just enlist some male high school grad without spending a penny?" Further, the efficacy of such a regimen has never been proven; in fact, even after months of weight training, there is no guarantee that the women (on whom the Army would have spent tens of thousands of dollars in facilities, cadre, and training) would ever be able to meet the standards easily met and exceeded by the average male.
The realities of this is quickly shown in the differences between APFT standards...even after years of military life, women are still not able to compete with men, physically, and Infantry life is nothing but a physical ordeal. This does not even take into consideration the harsher environments endured by infantrymen in Combat...this is just training to go to that combat.
Lose the argument, change the subject. Typical . lol
The policy as not just about infantry, although if women qualify for infantry they should server.
Women are already serving and getting shot at, shooting back, getting wounded and killed with no recognition as "combat".
Re-Elect Obama, how did he lose the argument? His whole point is that the female recruits are not as physically capable as the men. He also never said they shouldnt be recognized for their combat, just that they shouldnt be line infantry and they couldnt beat him in a fight. If you can prove thats wrong go for it.
re-elect..., You have totally missed the point, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE INFANTRY. The Infantry is the main combat arm of the Army & Marines. In conventional land warfare, when the Infantry arrives, you've taken & holding territory. All units have their function, but the Infantry is the real deal.
As noted previously, promotions come faster in the Infantry. Why, because it's so valuable or so useless to the Army ?
These women brought up this issue not to have a better Infantry or Army, but better pay & promotions for THEMSELVES.
After 20+ years in the miltary, I have worked with great volunteer male commrades and great volunteer female commrades. I have seen both cope with the stress of being in a Combat Arms occupation and have I seen them mentored those who will replace them. I have seen others who will need help to adapt to civilian life afterwards. Gender has nothing to do with the capacity to endure the after effects of combat. Some will survive, some will need help. But who is to say the next great military leader isn't a female and maybe she is being groom right now in Basis training somewhere? The books in the future might be writing about General "Storming" Norma Schwarzkopf
Ah...another PC comment.
devoid of physical reality.
We're not talking about the officer corps...
Re-Elect Obama 2012
"Explain why women "don't belong in combat"?
If they are willing and able to fight and die for your freedoms an their country why shouldn't they?"
Answer: Because this isn't about them. It's about the men that will die in combat, because people like you want this to be another triumph of the politically correct. Read the posts, friend. There's a reason women compete against other women in sports and in the Olympics, and not against men. And notice that's even true of the shooting events in the Olympics. Why do you suppose that is?
This is about women who are already fighting, wounded and dying to protect your freedom. They should be recognized for their service and they should be able to compete for any job if they are willing to volunteer, just like anybody else.
YAY! Another 'win' for, indeed, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, and the war against tradition and 'normal' and all that makes (made) our country strong. There is absolutely NO WAY that this makes ANY SENSE, and all that happened today is our soldiers have been put in more harms' way by their own country than by anyone they may be fighting. WOMEN AND MEN ARE DIFFERENT, and it's about time that we stopped being afraid to SAY THAT OUT LOUD. DIFFERENT does not mean "not as good as," to use words that the current generation seems to understand. All you have done now is create more tension on the front lines, more confusion, more guilt (what happens when men actually heed their instinct to protect someone they may think is not as strong as they are, simply by nature? They may not even realize they do it, but in the current climate of the United States of America, even heeding NATURE is WRONG!!!!), and place us in more danger because we REFUSE as a national community to RECOGNIZE the INHERENT, SCIENTIFIC DIFFERENCES in our genders and only think like WOMEN (not all, but definitely most) in saying "I am just as 'good' as he is so therefore I get to do EVERYTHING HE DOES, even if it endangers others." (And actually, the newest generation of women seem to PREFER that the men in their lives act more LIKE WOMEN, so it is genuinely baffling to someone at the ripe old age of 48.) I AM A WOMAN, I am NOT a 'babyboomer,' I am not a 'religious righter,' and yet, I will be crucified for having the nerve to DISAGREE with the LIBERAL LEFT and just lay down and let things like this continue to happen. IT IS RIDICULOUS, it is WRONG. Being different than each other is what makes us FABULOUS and UNIQUE, and yes, it also means that we all may not do EXACTLY WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES ... and it's high time that all the 'bleeding hearts' had something that wakes them up to REALITY!!!! We are not COMMUNISTS, and we do not live in a country where EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME THINGS!!!! We have lost our ability to SEE THE DIFFERENCES and LOVE THEM. We have become a people afraid to use terms that might OFFEND SOMEONE!!! Believe me, GROW UP and understand that YOU WILL BE OFFENDED IN LIFE and there will NOT always be an attorney to get you money for that. So, for all the mothers who wanted to sue someone because their children did not get invited to the proper party, and decided to change things ... HERE YOU GO!!!! We have become a country of people afraid to hurt feelings, and in consequence, we have become WEAK and MISUNDERSTOOD and a LAUGHING STOCK for the rest of the world. Happy Inauguration, Mr. President. I'm glad all your dreams (and your wife's) are coming true, and she can finally be a proud American since our country elected you president, AGAIN. Keep in mind, it was pretty much 50/50, so even if most of us out here are afraid to vocalize what is WRONG, we ARE HERE. We now live in a country where it is practically illegal to DISAGREE or have an opinion that goes against the small and meek, a country where we are expected to not look twice should two men or two women want to be married and accepted for their relationship instead of their accomplishments and you can also pretty much get high in most of the country, regardless of the laws. HOW PROUD WE SHOULD BE!!!! It seems that now is the time to DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, unless it is traditional, or not attention-grabbing, or GASP, goes against our government. Has anyone taken the time to check the crime stats or teen suicides or violent occurrences against times of yore (say, the '50s?) I bet we could still have morals and values, without compromising TRUE civil rights (not sexual orientation, come on, if I had marched with Martin Luther King, which I would have done, this current climate of things people are 'fighting for' would really MAKE ME MAD). Last time I checked, I can still at least 'think what I want,' but you never know. I now join the ranks of people ashamed and embarassed to be called "American Citizen." My husband fought for this country, and we have been staunch supporters of our freedom ... and it has been eeked away in the sneakiest way possible ... by the very 'bullying' that people cry out against, these same people make it impossible for anyone to disagree or have a different opinion ... and perhaps, there is actually something to be LEARNED from the past, and perhaps not think that everything, every rule is NOT for NAUGHT. That perhaps we ARE supposed to be different from one another, and no matter WHAT SIDE YOU ARE ON, we are not supposed to SHOVE those ideals down the throats of others. BIGOTRY IS BIGOTRY, no matter what side it is pushed from. What a travesty, one of many lately, that has been shoved down our collective throats in the name of "freedom."
So women will have an equal right to kill and be killed in unjust and undeclared 'wars'? Sad.
troll
Women are citizens just like the rest of us. It's a volunteer force. If they choose to serve, they should be able to compete for the jobs they want, not be prevented from even applying simply because of their gender.
It's not their "gender" that prevents them from "competing" for these jobs (like, there's a competition to become an infantryman...lol, what a joke)...
It is the limitations that that gender imposes on them.
Even after years of military training, women cannot compete against men. APFT standards and scoring is proof. If anything, the Army has a double standard...discriminating AGAINST men, forcing them to perform HARDER for the same number of promotion points (yes...the APFT is part of the promotion point system) as women...so women can "outperform" men without outperforming them....
It must suck to be a liberal...to be wrong all the time; yet people still vote for them! (no cure for stupid!)
This is not just about infantry. If a woman applies for infantry and doesn't qualify so be it, that's how it works.
Before today, a woman who lets just say was a convoy driver in a combat zone who survives a IED, an enemy ambush firefight, possibly even killing enemy , being wounded or killed, or performs an meritorious or valorous act would not have her service recognized as combat.
Explain how that is acceptable policy.
Who...oh bright and brilliant cue ball...has not been recognized? Show me one woman who has served in a combat zone and doesn't have that reflected in her 201 file or her DD214.
Where, oh where, shiny and slick "progressive" idgit, did you get the idea that soldiers (women) who have served in these combat zones are not recognized?
Jsut as an example Captain Zoe Berdell was denied Intelligence positions, despite being extremely qualified as an Arabic an Pharsi linguist with active duty in a combat zone, because women, even when serving in a combat zone, were not officially recognized as serving in a cobat rl.
"Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.
Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., said he supports Panetta's decision.
"The fact is that American women are already serving in harm's way today all over the world and in every branch of our armed forces," he said in a statement. "Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, and our nation owes them a deep debt of gratitude."
In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached -- but not formally assigned -- to units on the front lines.
Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/#ixzz2Is2UZHDs"
I suspect that the support from women stems from a desire of female officers to get their tickets punched so they can get the same promotion opportunities as men have. Not many generals come out of the Quartermaster Corps; if you want a bunch of stars, it helps to have a combat arms posting on your record.
Why shouldn't women be able to compete for any job that's avalable to every other soldier?
Why shouldn't women have the same promotion opportunities when they're killing the enemy and getting wounded by the enemy?
Repost because R O 2012 is not very intelligent;
It's not their "gender" that prevents them from "competing" for these jobs (like, there's a competition to become an infantryman...lol, what a joke)...
It is the limitations that that gender imposes on them.
Even after years of military training, women cannot compete against men. APFT standards and scoring is proof. If anything, the Army has a double standard...discriminating AGAINST men, forcing them to perform HARDER for the same number of promotion points (yes...the APFT is part of the promotion point system) as women...so women can "outperform" men without outperforming them....
It must suck to be a liberal...to be wrong all the time; yet people still vote for them! (no cure for stupid!)
#555.3
RE *555.3
Who...oh bright and brilliant cue ball...has not been recognized? Show me one woman who has served in a combat zone and doesn't have that reflected in her 201 file or her DD214.
Where, oh where, shiny and slick "progressive" idgit, did you get the idea that soldiers (women) who have served in these combat zones are not recognized?
#555.5
I think this is great! Just as Bill Murray once stated on SNL, consider:
If we fight another country and win, fine! But if we lose, we can say: Wow. You beat a bunch of women. Well aren't you the tough ones? The other country would be sooo embarrassed that they'd surrender after all. It's just a win-win situation!
1) I have truly enjoyed reading a rich panoply of responses to this issue. In a military which presently has not drafted even one person in the last forty years, we must make the best use of any and all "human resources" who express a sincere desire and willingness to serve. With that in mind, while maintaining the focus on military effectiveness, we should proceed to allow people to serve in any capacity for which they truly qualify.
2) Nobody in their right mind expects the infantry units of either the Marines or the Army to suddenly be overrun with 5ft 1inch princesses whose chief worry is whether or not their combat boots match their rucksack. As one poster pointed out, there are not too many female linebackers in the NFL either, even though I suspect Jerry Jones would be thrilled to hire one who could do the job just for the novelty of it. There have been one or two female goalies in the NHL. The point is, in an environment dominated by tangible performance metrics, the "facts on the ground" pretty much take care of things. I doubt there is much to worry about, and not much is going to change.
3) There will no doubt be the few and the proud among the XX-genotype who seek and qualify for a ground-combat MOS. All I can say to that is, more power to them, and for the rest of you Henry Higgins out there, don't ask "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" and then bitch about it when she is.
4) I am still opposed to drafting women into the military at any time for any reason, and am especially opposed to ever requiring any female soldier to be assigned to a ground-combat MOS. I can give no rational reason why I am of this opinion, that's just the way it is.
5) I do agree with the opinion that Leon Panetta is an unscrupulous piece of chickenpoop for making this landmark decree as a "lame duck," a decree that he neither has to stick around to implement nor face any unforeseen consequences thereof.
Yes, I did serve.
Holy crap, I feel pity for the enemy that has to go to battle with a unit that is on their monthly cycle.
Let's see...I know there's a unit that is suffering from recurring cramps once a month...that their physical ability is weakened once per month, even if they are a little bitchy about it...and that their "cycles" are in unison (as is the case with large numbers of women living in close proximity...)
That's when I would attack...when the enemy is at their weakest.
The enemy has a secret cycle clock? LOL
Well...RO 2012...having served at Fort Jackson, (thankfully, not as a Drill...I was stuck on Remagen and Anzio ranges (combat live fire training...)) women's cycles tend to "get in synch"...they begin to menstruate at the same time when they trained at Fort Jackson (seperate platoons from men).
It's a weird phenomenon...but hey, whatever.
I'm amazed you don't know this!
That doesn't mean the enemy would know the timing on any particular cycle and there is absolutley no proof that menstruation is a weakness. That's caveman thinking.
Patrick, in the modern day of birth control. that doesn't really happen.
And won't we be proud if the totally unexpected happens ... your daughters have to register for 'selective service.' Imagine. Or... should women be totally 'volunteer,' so when it gets hot and heavy, the other 'sisters' in the fight don't have to do what the minority decides? Which completely takes all credibility away from the entire subject??? What about rules of engagement? The UN? You know, those rules we are all supposed to follow ... and not 'kill women and children.' Exactly where does that leave the United States Military? Oh, I forgot. We've already forfeited our strengths by pledging to only shoot if someone shoots at us first, as we are not good judges of threats. We must be told what to do at all times. Sometimes the complete and total blindness is astounding. In our race to be 'just as good' and 'on the same playing field,' we have sacrified and compromised the very fabric of what makes us who we are, naturally, irrevocably; we have generations of children raised by strangers outside of the home, and we justify it in our hunt for a bigger paycheck; we wonder why our children, in this age of advanced technology, now have the highest obesity rate in history, and we choose to blame (and bring lawsuits) against everyone but ourselves. Bottom line: If we TRULY let women be women and men be men, I bet most people would be surprised, if it was truly an honest thing, how things worked out. And if you think I'm making that up, you are lying to yourselves. It is embarassing to be in a country where you either seem to have to be a completely far-left liberal or be on a reality show. What is it going to take to wake up the sleeping minority of people to what has happend to us.
Is it not a problem that females have small brains and are likely to do stupid things in battle?
No..because that problem doesn't exist.
(yeah..men do stupid things in combat, too!)
Interesting title for the story, I didn't realize the goverment "gave" rights, I thought we were born with them. You woman who want to fight are braver than I. Good luck and best wishes its about time.
Oh really. Good luck being born anywhere else in the world and claim U.S. rights without the U.S. Government securing those rights for you.
OmG...RO2012...you couldn't post a more fascist remark.
The US Government does not secure those rights...(as was definitely shown over and over again under the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, with "renditions", targeted assassination of a US Citizen(even though he was an Al Qaida type) and suspension of freedom from unreasonable search (TSA)..)...
Citizens who voluntarily serve the military secure those rights. The Government only seems to be able to weaken or eliminate those rights. Presently, we (supposedly) elect representatives from our communities and states to pass laws respective of these rights (Congress) and are able to redress grievances for violations of those rights through the Judiciary and through Congress.
The POTUS is only an executive (not a King)...whose task it is to execute the laws passed by Congress...the POTUS cannot unilaterally make treaties, impose laws, raise taxes, or declare war without Congress' approval through either ratification or through legislation. If at any time laws or actions are taken that violate our rights as described in the Constitution, the Judiciary can annul those laws and return the rights to the people.
Thus, it is WE who secure OUR rights. It is a fact of existence that our US rights do not extend past our borders...as is the case with any citizen from any country.
So the military exists separately from the government how?
They're all on a government paycheck paid by the taxpayer.
The military exists by the will of the government of, by and for the people.
As a nation we hold that our rights are given by god, but it takes our government and its various institutions to secure those rights.
Again...you said it. The military is not seperate from the "Government"...and the Government is of, by, and for the people...as is the military.
well...not this government...
but the theory is sound. The military's top leaders, (POTUS, Sec. Def, Sec's of Army, Navy, etc.) are civilians...the POTUS is (supposedly) elected BY THE PEOPLE...and his cabinet is approved on the advise and consent of the Senate, elected BY THE PEOPLE (that's you and me)....
Thus it is you and I who decide who will be in these critical positions...thus it is you and I who are responsible for our own freedoms, for who we elect to serve in these public offices...and if they aren't doing a good job or if they are regularly violating our rights, we can elect someone else and replace them.
No one puts a gun to your head and forces you to join the military...so you volunteer to serve...as a public servant...to defend your rights and those of your fellow countrymen.
Even in a draft...if ever it were to return...has the people to thank for its existence, as the only way a draft can be imposed is through the Congress, elected representatives of the people. This little trick of the people was not known until the end of the draft in 1970...when elected representatives ended the draft...representatives elected by the people.
er...sorry about the errors...("even in a draft...has the people...end of the draft in 1970") I meant "Even a draft...has the people to thank...." and "end of the draft in the 1970's...".
Lose the argument, change the topic. Typical. You got nuthin.
This policy is well within the power of the executive, just as the previous policies were, without a law from the Legislative. A change in this policy would require election of someone who could win the Presidency in 2016 that included a policy of rolling back advances for women in the military - not likely.
Similarly a Congress would have to be elected in 2014 with a mandate to roll back advances for women in the military - also not likely.
Yup...a true fascist...(though we tend to call it "friendly" fascism here in America)...aka a "progressive"...
no wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket.
So when Executive Branch policy discriminates against women on the basis of gender, that's OK? THAT is fascist.
The Israelis tried this and it did not work. We tried this in Desert Storm and it did not work. Did something change in human nature? Time tested, this has never been a good ideal. What will it take? Radical Islamists will see this as weakness, not a strength. What will it take? To them, we send women to do a man's job - that is how they think. How is this going to change anything? I am not prejudiced against women, it's just that our enemy is. They don't see things like we do. Back in the Gulf War this was halted because of what they did to our female prisoners. Do they they think that has changed? Not likely...
In 2000, the Equality amendment to the Military Service law stated that "The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men. The amendment that female lawmakers had drafted granted equal opportunities to women found physically and personally suitable for a job. The question of who and what was "suitable" was left to the discretion of military leaders on a case-by-case basis. Women did start to enter combat support and light combat roles in a few areas, including the Artillery Corps, infantry units and armored divisions. A few platoons named Carakal were formed for men and women to serve together in light infantry. By 2000 Carakal became a full-fledged battalion. Many women would also join the Border Police.
The first female jet fighter pilot, Roni Zuckerman, received her wings in 2001. By 2006, the first female pilots and navigators graduated from the IAF training course, and several hundred women entered combat units, primarily in support roles, like intelligence gatherers, instructors, social workers, medics and engineers. When the Second Lebanon War broke out, it was the first time since 1948 that women were in field operations alongside men. Airborne helicopter engineer Sgt.-Maj. (res.) Keren Tendler was the first female IDF combat soldier to be killed in action. In November 2007 the Air Force appointed its first woman deputy squadron commander.
On 23 June 2011, Orna Barbivai became the first female Major-General in the IDF upon her promotion to the role of commander of the Manpower Directorate. She is the second woman to serve on the General Staff.
In 2012, Capitan Merav Buchris become the first female ammunition Officer in the Air force, she started her military carrier as a Shoher at the Technical Academy in Haifa.
Good for them...
but...
Their standards are lower. As one Brit put it (with whom I served in Korea)...the Israelis are a 2nd class army fighting against 3rd class armies...it's why they win. If they were pitted against a first class army, they'd lose (that is, if they had to defend themselves against the US, the UK, or the former USSR...well, the outcome is obvious...).
So...let's not lower our standards and become a 2nd class army...
The Chairmen of the Joint Cheifs of Staff would not support this is they though it would have a negative impact on effectiveness and combat readiness.
"Mr. Panetta’s decision came after he received a Jan. 9 letter from Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stated in strong terms that the armed service chiefs all agreed that “the time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/us/pentagon-says-it-is-lifting-ban-on-women-in-combat.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Well...There ain't no cure for stupid...
And most generals I've met were a bunch of potato headed liberals. (You know, Mr. Potato Head, the guy who could change his face dependent on whom he talked to...how do you think these guys became generals? By pretending to be tough in front of the men and treating them like shyte, and being lily livered, brown nosing sychophants to their superiors...)
But hey, I can rant all I want; if these idjits want to f* up a good thing...well...
such is the way of things.
(Did you know in the IDF physical fitness test, their pushups are not timed, nor are their situps, and they only have to run 1.24 miles (2 km)? Still, their test is better than many...but there is no MINIMUM number of reps for the pushups or situps...in fact, if you can run real fast but only do a few Pushups or situps, you can pass the test. Passing is based on a cumulative score, with the emphasis in scoring (70 points) is on the run, with 15 max points for pushups and 15 max points for situps...so if you're thinking about joining the IDF...best to be able to run like a jackrabbit....
Easy access battle fatigues? Raping of prisoners in a REAL war? Starship Troopers? Stay tuned for next weeks' episode.
As long as women meet their own required standard, I have no problem with them in combat....with the stipulation they operate in ALL-WOMEN battalions. This way, there is no 200lb guy to haul off the field of battle, but another 130lb woman. No muss or fuss with latrine issues, no over-protective men situations. Just Ladies in battle. Get ready-----> CHARGE!!!
... gives women the right to fight??? All the women who have died were just doing their nails? How stupid. I believe from my old army days, if you were on active duty, you were in the fight no matter your MOS.
Uncle Leon the cowardly lion who will say anything as long as he knows know one will call him on it Pointsettia... the CA, Paylousy favor SOD anti military peacenick put there to dismantle the military as a backroom payback favor to Paylousy.... hmmm. So, I think it was a couple months ago that a bunch of women failed combat training when tested. Then the official DOD study came out that showed not many women at all, hardly any wanted a combat MOS. What they did want was the faster promotions that come with a combat tour, and most of their male counterparts in non combat roles kind of wanted the same to boot. So, Hillsarwe is on the stand today giving her false tears, throwing blame around, reading prepared statements and telling us the deaths in Libya didn't matter anymore as they were so long ago and we need to just forget it. And of course, we should all be sorry for HER, because SHE was sad having to be their when the coffins came in and that was what mattered. So, knocking that testimony off the front page comes another Obama ram it down someones throat whether they like it or not popular opinion getting decision about women..... yep, all works out.
Just lower the standards so the attrition rates remain equal between genders. That will help. Same as it has helped our public schools.
I'm no soldier so I can say I haven't earned the right to talk ill of our men and women in the military because you can really only hate on it once you've been in is what my dad says. I'm not sexist either, the ban was put in originally mainly because of sexism not giving women even a chance at a role other than nurse or something. Women can train just like men to do everything men do and better it just depends on the person, they are at a disadvantage because men are naturally better suited for these jobs physically. But hey if they prove they can do it then why spot them, I think the physical standards for the army right now are too low anyways! But speaking in terms of hand to hand combat and all out war where this is common women are at a tremendous disadvantage. I think women should be trained MORE than men in hand to hand combat because of that, because if you take a man and a women who are equally trained all chance aside the man is going to win because he is twice as strong. Hand to hand combat is something no weakling should be thrown into which unfortunately they are. I just think that at war women could very well have higher performances than men, but way higher casualty rating in hand to hand combat. Maybe I'm wrong because I doubt there will be a war on those scales again, but who knows. I think it would be unfair to women if the military didn't train them more at what they have a natural disadvantage at. Everyone should focus on their weaknesses in life and try to make them their greatest strengths.
Women AREN'T men.
Not one less push-up. Not one less pull-up. Not one less sit-up. The EXACT same time on timed runs. The EXACT same weight in their rucks (75lbs). The EXACT same distance for forced ruck marches. They get to carry the 240 when it's their turn. No less on ANY of the physical requirements that the men all must pass to be part of an infantry unit in combat.
If this decision stands, make women meet the EXACT SAME STANDARDS. If they can do that, let them in the unit, and let them take point.
26-year vet. Two tours downrange.
I am a 3 time female combat vet. I was a trucker thru 2 of them, commo for the other time. If some of you pig-headed males think a female trucker doesn't see any action, you are so wrong. I nearly got killed on a daily basis, going out on the routes. I was in just as much danger as the men, but because I wasn't supposed to be there-then I was less than a soldier?? Just because you have male-parts, you are better than me? Think again! It is quickly losing it's place as a "Men's Club" because many young men today do not have what it takes to be a man! Too many whiny Mama's boys out there, someone's gotta do the job! When I came back from the 1st time with a combat action ribbon (very few women got them at the time) I was constantly hounded about it by the men, mostly the ones who didn't earn one. I got tired of reliving my experiences every time some guy whose balls hadn't dropped yet, got offended because I had one and he didn't. Grow up and be men. Stop whining about females. This is 2013, not 1945. And news flash: Women are getting injured or dying in combat all the time now, so much for the "male protect the female at all costs" wive's tale.
For the ones pushing for this (women in the reserves and civilians who know NOTHING about war and combat), be careful what you wish for. All three times I went, I was ordered to go-I didn't volunteer. When I served with only 3 other women who were truckers like me, it was just fine. We kept to ourselves, away from the men. No hanky-panky was going on at all. When I was tossed into a larger unit with about 50 women (support, admin, truckers) to about 300 men, it was chaos. Blame whoever you want, men and women will have sex and they will have it wherever and whenever they get the chance. You can't totally pin it on either sex; I saw both being just as sneaky and conniving to find a safe place to meet. For the ones that got caught, there were 50 more who didn't get caught!
My opinion, as being qualified to speak on it more than most- This will be twisted around until it aligns with what's going on in units right now. Women will be relegated to office and support jobs for years to come and slowly integrated into the combat line units over time.
This isn't going to be like getting a shot. It will not be quick and painless. I personally don't think a lot of women will meet the physical, emotional and mental standards of full-on ground combat. Some have been thrown into those situations and performed remarkably well. Others, like a particular female I knew cower in the face of danger and refuse to draw their weapons on an enemy they think hasn't come to harm anyone. To make this decision go down easier, women should be allowed to choose if they want to be combat arms or not-not ordered into it. If not, there will be a lot more pregnancies and desertions to get out of it. This is not about women's equality here, this is about who can perform the job well, without any special treatment.
Thank you for your service and your excellent comment.
Despite waging continuous wars for nearly 12 years, the American government has not seen any significant anti-war protest at home whereas during the 10 years of Vietnam War, the nation was under seiged by massive national anti-war protests. The principal reason is fairly obvious: the American government avoided the unpopular draft which would have mobilized and galvanized anti-war movements. By recruiting females, the military essentially doubles the number of qualified candidates negating the need for a draft. Without any anti-war protests, the war mongers and the Military Industrial Complex have the freedom to wage several wars without having to state a political or military objective.
The American military have been able to wage several protracted wars in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan without resorting to the draft by supplementing the career soldiers and commissioned officers with low-skilled and no-skilled male and female recruits who are essentially the cannon foddars. As in many industrialized nations, the American government uses the military organizations as the employer of last resort to reduce the unemployment rate, and thereby reduce potential social unrest as well as hostility toward the status quo government. However, as to these cannon foddars, the fundamental difference between USA and other nations is that America sends them into combat to be killed whereas other nations rarely do.
Before the advent of American socialism of the mid '50s, Americans enjoyed the highest standard of living and the Dollar having the most purchasing power in the world. In the typical American middle class family, only one 'bread winner' was sufficient to support a family of four. Consequently, women had the freedom to work or stay home as a home maker or recreate in her own style. Today, American women have no choice but to join the millions of women of developing-third world nations toiling for a living, to stay financially above water even as they supplement their husbands' income. But as the socialist economy falters, the Men of Power instigated several wars as the mean of propping up the imploding economy and employing the millions of jobless workers, both male and female.
Concealed under the banner of equal opportunity, progressive thinking, and patriotism, the American government aggressively recruited women into the military as women began to join the work force in greater numbers since the 1950s and also constituted a large percentage of the jobless when the economy collapsed. To persuade the patriotic, the idealist, and the impressionable young males, the Men of Power issue propaganda that appeals to exclusivity, the virtue of honor and bravery, the realization of self, and adventure: " Be All That You Can Be. Join the Army." "The Proud, the Few, the Marines." "Join the Navy, See the World." For the female recruits, the propaganda is marketed in more subtle terms insinuating the 'Feminist Movement," or "Women Liberation," or equality of the sexes.
No Men of Power will ever tell these female recruits that there is no feminist movement in a body bag or that a corpse is only liberated from life. As to the latter, in death both genders enjoy ultimate equality.
I have concluded that only suicidal women, most likely lesbians, want to serve in the military. Imagine your wife, mother, sister and grandmother being force to serve in the military to kill people.
Oh, Brother!
obviously you do not care about women.
I guess equality has come to the battlefield. Women seem to be rightly concerned about some men who lack self control around them. A fair concern in some individual cases. However, when women consider going into battle against traditionally male-dominated societies, they had better be ready for the unbridled evil they may experience if they are caught in battle and become a prisoner of war. Do not have any illusions about what will be the consequences of capture. You had better have a cyanide capsule ready just in case. Death may be better than capture. Hope the equality is worth it...