January 23rd, 2013
03:21 PM ET

Military to open combat jobs to women

By Chris Lawrence, with reporting from Barbara Starr

[Updated at 9:30 p.m. ET] The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, multiple officials told CNN on Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement Thursday and notify Congress of the planned change in policy, the officials said.

"We will eliminate the policy of 'no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,'" a senior defense official said.

The officials cautioned, however, that "not every position will open all at once on Thursday." Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an "assessment phase," in which each branch of service will examine all its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable for integrating them.

Go to CNN's iReport to share your thoughts on women in combat

The Army and Marine Corps, especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report on their progress.

The move will be one of the last significant policy decisions made by Panetta, who is expected to leave in mid-February. It is not clear where former Sen. Chuck Hagel, the nominated replacement, stands, but officials say he has been apprised of Panetta's coming announcement.

"It will take a while to work out the mechanics in some cases. We expect some jobs to open quickly, by the end of this year. Others, like special operations forces and infantry, may take longer," a senior defense official explained. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women to be integrated as much as possible.

The Pentagon has left itself some wiggle room, however, which may ultimately lead to some jobs being designated as closed to women. A senior defense official said if, after the assessment, a branch finds that "a specific job or unit should not be open, they can go back to the secretary and ask for an exemption to the policy, to designate the job or unit as closed."

The official said the goal remains to open as many jobs as possible. "We should open all specialties to the maximum extent possible to women. We know they can do it."

CNN readers skirmish over women in battle

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who spent six years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, said he supports lifting the ban on women serving in combat, pointing out women are already serving in harm's way. But he said the move should not fundamentally change the military.

"As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world - particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units," McCain said in a statement.

By the numbers: Women in the U.S. military

Thousands of women in the military have already found themselves in combat situations, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington. Recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan have lacked a real front line, and women serving there have come under fire and had to fight back alongside male counterparts, she said.

Murray, who leads the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and is a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, called Panetta's decision a "historic step for equality" that recognizes the role women play in the military.

The Pentagon must notify Congress of each job or unit as it is sent up to the secretary to be opened to women. Then the Defense Department must wait 30 days while Congress is in session before implementing the change.

It is a marked difference from the way the military ended the exclusion of gays serving openly, or the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In that case, there were no stipulations attached to openly gay service members. There was no staggered approach that integrated openly gay troops into units. It was instead done all at once, across the board.

A senior defense official explained the Pentagon's reasoning behind the different approach: "You're talking about personal choice of behavior versus physical capability. And they were already in the units. If you take a unit that's never had women before, that's quite a culture change."

Another senior defense official said the goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field."

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Defense, charging that combat exclusion is unfair and outdated, harms America's safety and prevents women from receiving training and recognition for their work. The plaintiffs, who include women awarded Purple Hearts, say the exclusion places them at a disadvantage for promotion.

Former troops say time has come for women in combat units

The ACLU said it is thrilled about Panetta's planned announcement.

"But we welcome this statement with cautious optimism, as we hope that it will be implemented fairly and quickly so that servicewomen can receive the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts," Ariela Migdal, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, said in the statement.

Earlier this month, the Army opened the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment to women, and it has begun recruiting female pilots and crew chiefs. The Navy has put its first female officers on submarines in the past year, and certain female ground troops have been attached to combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 800 women were wounded in those wars, and at least 130 have died.

soundoff (3,524 Responses)
  1. Common Sense

    What happens with Maternity Leave when your in a combat zone?

    January 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Reply
    • Brian in DC

      It gets aborted by PP.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Reply
      • Common Sense

        Brings new meaning to "Mission Aborted!"....

        January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
    • donna

      Women have been serving in combat zones for years.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Reply
      • Dom

        But not in combat Donna, whole different animal

        January 23, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
      • donna

        No Dom, not relating to the issue of getting pregnant, it is not a whole different animal. Nothing about that possibility changes because they are allowed to be in designated combat slots as opposed to combat zones. Either way, whether your slot is a combat one or not, you can NOT be in a combat zone if you are pregnant. So there is no change there.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
      • Damien

        Donna people are in combat zones yes but the roles do matter. Women's job has kept them on bases, FOBs, in trucks and so on. I have never seen a women take over a compound firm up and then run patrols just to locate close with and destroy the enemy.

        January 23, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
      • Paul

        They have served "in" combat zones, but rarely in a direct combat role. There's a difference.

        January 24, 2013 at 6:08 am |
      • cagetch

        Dom, you are wrong. We have Female Engagement Teams that work with infantry squads to secure compounds. the SF has the same and calls them Cultural Support Teams. I ran more than 60 missions in Afghanistan, both mounted and dismounted engaging female Afghans with my female personal security detachment.

        January 25, 2013 at 8:41 am |
    • Jon

      Warfare is NOT a gender neutral playing field. This is going to get a lot of people killed.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Reply
      • Ken

        Nobody is talking about the impact – this will cost lives in combat. Women are not equal, and cannot hack it. Anyone that has gone outside the wire on a mission knows this. I am a former USMC infantry - glad i am no longer active duty to see this. This is a grave mistake!!!!

        January 23, 2013 at 11:08 pm |
    • Laura Flowers

      They get reassigned duties and sent back to a more appropriate post if they're pregnant obviously. Use your common sense. Besides, women will be on the front lines typically only in an MOS that qualifies for that. The exceptions might be mechanics, commo, medics and supply.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Reply
    • SilentPro21

      I don't know where that photo was taken, but it is one of the biggest kitchens I have ever seen!!†!!

      January 23, 2013 at 4:50 pm | Reply
      • spaceEatingmonkey

        I agree. anyone who doesnt can call me and complain. 3302197745

        January 24, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • laura

      How will female soldiers become pregnant on duty unless males on duty are participating in the act? Do people really think male soldiers never leave their roles for medical reasons and receive their due as enlisted personnel? Small minds think alike, apparently.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Reply
    • tethys

      Most women in the military that I know take a sub cutaneous birth control shot. It prevents pregnancy and you don't even have your period for a whole year. It is a non-issue.

      January 23, 2013 at 5:47 pm | Reply
      • meg

        great now we are talking forced birth control cant wait for selective service.....

        January 23, 2013 at 10:51 pm |
      • rich

        On the selective service part neither can I. I am on the Board and I want to draft some of the little cowardly boys.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:53 pm |
    • Jon

      They get flown home, leaving their unit unprepared and possibly not even deployable, since here at Ft. Bragg women go overseas and get pregnant to come back to safety.

      January 24, 2013 at 9:22 am | Reply
    • erexx

      They get replaced with another soldier.
      Same thing happens if one gets a toothache.

      January 24, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Reply
    • erexx

      Same thing that happens when a soldier get a toothache in the field.
      They get replaced.
      Common Sense indeed.

      January 24, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Reply
  2. Louis

    Now women will have the same opportunity as men to die in unnecessary wars.

    January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • The Eternal Satyr

      My thoughts exactly! Is this more of the "change" Obama promised?

      January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
    • meg

      wonderful just what woman need does that get rid of all domestic violence laws after all woman are equal to men. So we protect woman at home and send them off to war to get smacked around by foreign men yep that makes sense... totally

      January 23, 2013 at 10:54 pm | Reply
  3. Peperosso

    It's about time, now make them sign up for the draft also. Change the Military Draft Requirements to read Under current United States law, every citizen between the ages of 18 and 25 years must register with the Selective Service.

    January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • Bob

      Um... the US doesnt have a draft...

      January 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Reply
    • no

      No, don't do that. You are wrong.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Reply
    • tardis_blue

      Alright. I generally oppose war, but I oppose gender inequality more. And I agree with the others saying it's time to sign women up for selective service. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of selective service, but it should be equal. It is just as traumatizing to lose a father or brother as it is to lose a mother or sister. And as the mother of an only son, I'd love to see my son's chances of getting drafted reduced.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Reply
    • Ralph Moerschbacher

      I agree but our government is to stupid to allow that. This is a political move.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Reply
    • Max

      you must be 100 years old

      January 23, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Reply
    • meg

      Ya, cant wait for them to drag woman kicking and screaming off to war... and force them to fight..

      January 23, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Reply
  4. BlackDynamite

    A woman on PMS can whip my -!

    And I'm Black Freakin' Dynamite!
    BD

    January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • The Eternal Satyr

      Stick with her and you'll be fartin' through silk!

      January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
  5. Judy

    It's about time. Women have been facing the same dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan as the men, but not being technically in a combat occupation has limited promotions for the women.

    January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • Brian in DC

      and you know this how?

      January 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Reply
    • oh yea

      You are an idiot, that is not accurate at all.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Reply
    • Jim

      What baloney! Women haven't been facing the same dangers in the Middle East, nothing at all like being right in combat! This is such politically incorrect nonsense. Women don't have the physical strength, not nearly, to face combat. When people like you point out women being hurt in Iraq, Afghanistan, that's just like saying that if my wife is in harm's way and gets hurt, that means she should fight in combat. How incredibly stupid! And why would you WANT women in combat?? Are you a loon? Still have something to prove, right?

      January 23, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Reply
    • Jim

      Nothing...I repeat...nothing, has limited promotions for females in the military. But, go ahead, keep repeating the myth and telling that to yourself. Dip**it.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Reply
      • Cindy

        Jim – how many female 4 stars do YOU see walking around the Pentagon? Of course not being permitted to serve in combat limits women's promotions. This isn't speculation, it's fact.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
    • Sammy Z

      Lucy, what you say is 100% true. Do you know how I know? Because I commanded females during combat operations while in Afghanistan no more than 4 months back.

      Everyone else who replied to you is simply ignorant of the realities overseas.

      January 23, 2013 at 6:15 pm | Reply
  6. Plato

    Why not...if a gay can fight, then women should as well...A gay man and a woman have about the same strength/mental components.

    January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • Mikey

      Please, do not feed the Trolls...this one in particular. May a 300 pound pumped up gay man run into you in a dark ally some day.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Reply
    • pbuotte

      PLATO,
      You are un-wise. I know a gay man, 2x Vietnam Infantry Officer, West Point grad, retired as a Colonel. When you step up and serve with 25 years like this Man did, THEN your wisest move would be to have NO comment.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:13 pm | Reply
    • Lazicus

      Retired soldier and not a huge fan of the gay lifestyle. That said, I'd take a gay man at my side over a female of any stripe if we were under heavy attack. Men are men and women are women and they are not the same.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:36 pm | Reply
  7. Shari

    I think as long as they can pass the exact same physical requirements, then why not? Might even be a benefit there, has anyone ever seen how crazy women can get when provoked? As a female, I would know. There be some crazy beeches out there. :)

    January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • Al

      Psycho crazy isn't good if you're trying to maintain good order and discipline, and make smart, decisive life and death decisions.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Reply
    • alexusf

      But they ARENT required to meet the same physical standards. Shouldn't they be??

      January 23, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Reply
    • Stephen1981

      The problem is they can't. I've been serving for 14 years and I've known 1 woman that could run an 18 minute 3 miles and do 20 dead hang pullups. She was an oddity and honestly, she was built like a man

      January 24, 2013 at 8:04 am | Reply
  8. hillbillynwv

    I have a feeling this just isn't going to work out well. I wonder what the enemy would do with female POW's???

    January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
    • Finn

      Obviously you think male POWs are never raped because they don't talk about it. Guess again.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Reply
      • Amanda

        Come on! Women POWs would be raped more often and more violently than male POWs simply because they are female. There would be NO deterrent for the enemies... nothing "gay" about raping women. I wouldn't even want to think about getting captured in the middle east where women without hijab are "asking" for it (according to the men). Plus we have two holes :(

        January 24, 2013 at 12:12 am |
    • AF White

      You don't have to wonder...they will rape them. Happened in Desert Storm.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:33 pm | Reply
  9. Sagebrush Shorty

    About time.

    January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  10. oh yea

    So instead of a bunch of dudes smelling like crap from not showering for weeks we now get to smell rotten fish everyday... hells yes

    January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
    • Josh

      Hahahaha so true......

      January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
  11. GLK20c

    Wouldn't mind having on of those A2s. Does the government make them available to us through the Civilian Marksmanship Program? No, they give them to the Afghan Army. Nice

    January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  12. jimmer

    It's all fun and games until you break a fingernail.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Reply
    • Common Sense

      LMAO! Or get knocked up by the Taliban, awkward!!!!

      January 23, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Reply
  13. afatcow134

    Don't let the rage wearing monkeys near them, who knows what they will do to American women...

    January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Reply
  14. The Lighting

    Better them than me.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
  15. State the Obvious

    Nice distraction from the Benghazi testimony. Americans will be outraged that there sweet daughters are being sent into harm’s way (even though few women have passed the USMC physical qualifications to be combat forward) and it will consume the headlines. At least that is what they are hoping so you don't notice that the next Democratic presidential candidate severely botched Benghazi costing four Americans their lives.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
    • Curley

      Did you not read CNN's lead story about Clinton testifying about Benghazi? Or are you one of those people who think there is no other news happening than what is important to you at the moment?

      January 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Reply
    • Bob

      Um.... no one is being "sent" anywhere. Last I checked, the US has a 100% volunteer military, and last I checked, women were fighting for equality. This is not being pushed on anyone. As for your dimwitted Benghazi comment – not everything is a conspiracy you know.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
      • Josh

        Well if you looked at the actual numbers less than 5% of women actually want to do Infantry. But none have actually passed the infantry school yet.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
  16. Jeff

    Being a former Army man. Lets make sure that if it's open, the physical requirements are not lessened. I would not want to have to move / carry a 300lb Pioneer box with a woman that can only carry 75lbs worth of weight. If women get into the infantry or any field that is physically exerting, i will expect them to be a very buff looking woman. You want the rights then you better carry your weight, no excuses, no exceptions otherwise stay out of my
    MOS ( Military Oppupational Speciality ).

    January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
    • Ralph Moerschbacher

      Amen Thank you for your service. Ralph Moerschbacher, Captain, USAF Retired Vietnam Veteran (2 tours)

      January 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Reply
    • Sheilagh

      Well said, sir.

      January 24, 2013 at 5:19 pm | Reply
  17. Say

    Now other countries gonna wanna pick fights with us just to go into one and one combat.....

    January 23, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Reply
  18. rad666

    Reduce America's military by 75%.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Reply
    • Curley

      To match the decrease in your IQ?

      January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
  19. Spartan

    Hand a woman a gun when USA is invaded. Until then Ensure the Safety of myself and fellow soldiers in the combat zones by not Distracting us with a woman.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
    • Woman1

      And that is why it has taken so long to establish womens rights. STUPID comments like that!!!

      January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
      • Common Sense

        Boo hoo, if you think combat is warm and soft like chocolate chip cookies baking in the oven, think again....

        January 23, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
      • Ralph Moerschbacher

        My father landed on Omaha Beach on DDay, 6 June 1944. He was a combat medic. Treating wounded and dying men was difficult, but treating women casualties would go against OUR values in this country relating to our mothers, sisters, and aunts etc. Other countries do not value women as much as we do in this country. I am the father of 6 daughters. I do not want them in combat. How much political correctness do we need. We allowed gays to openly march in the San Diego Gay Pride parade last year in military uniform. There is nothing sacred in this liberal society we have created. Be a woman and all that goes with it. You do not want to get shot and bleed to death on some foreign land that really does not care that you are there. If our country is attacked sure fight and die, but equal opportunity cad and probably will get you killed. Ralph Moerschbacher, Captain, USAF Retired 2 tour Vietnam Veteran

        January 23, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
      • Paul

        Women1 take a hint most of these comments are from people that been there done that.

        January 24, 2013 at 10:28 am |
    • Cindy

      If the mere presence of a female distracts you, do us all a favor and stay home

      January 23, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Reply
      • Common Sense

        Why don't you stay home? Watch the kids for a change.....

        January 23, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
    • Haley

      If you are so immature and unprofessional that a female doing her job will "distract" you from doing your's, you shouldn't be in combat. Moron.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Reply
      • 0313forlife

        Unless you've been reborn as an 18 year old male straight into the military after H.S. then you wouldn't know right? I thought you soft liberals listened to both sides before you made yourself sound stupid?

        January 24, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
  20. Bobo68

    Really?? Frontline combat units? I went through USMC OCS in the Fall of 1992. Female candidates did not have to run as fast, do as many situps or even a single Front Hand Pullup. Now, as of November 2012, the USMC is finally charting a path to at least get female candidates to eventually have to do FAHs, but by 2014 they will only have to do 8 to get 100 points on the PFT versus their male counterparts having to do 20...
    I really do not know how a female officer or enlisted Marine can take themselves seriously as equals if they cannot even do the same as their male counterparts...

    http://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/MessagesDisplay/tabid/13286/Article/134672/change-to-the-physical-fitness-test.aspx

    January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
    • anon

      It says RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE that they're reviewing the physical standards requirements – in other words it is extremely likely that women who do choose to go into direct combat will end up needing to meet higher physical standards that are more appropriate for direct combat.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
      • my kids father

        It's also extremely likely women will not have to complete the same physical standards.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
      • Paul

        Or they will lower the male standards until most women can meet them. Thereby reducing the overall effectiveness of the whole unit. Women in combat will get LOTS of men killed.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
      • Quille

        That's if they get to choose. There is some opportunity to choose jobs in the military, but there is also a great deal of simply having to go where you are assigned. It's my hope that this can be a choice for women. I had to volunteer for submarine duty when I enlisted in the Navy. I had to meet certain requirements to qualify. A woman should have to volunteer for a combat MOS and qualify for it. This protects her and her fellow service members.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
    • AB

      The problem being is that they say that they want the same training and same opportunities, yet when the standard is applied, they claim that they can't do the same physical activities and that the standard should be lowered to accomodate them. What you end up with is not a stronger military force because you allow women into previously restricted positions, you end up with a diverse military that is fundamentally weaker because you've accomplished nothing but a lowering of the standard.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
    • markprevatt110711467

      Genius....just because the "standards" were set lower, doesn't mean that there's a magic number of push-ups, sit-ups and 2-mile run times that women CAN'T do! There are probably MANY women who can exceed even the men's standards! They just weren't "required" to do so.

      Think of it THIS way...do you think that YOU can run ANY of the City marathons faster than ANY woman when you were in the service? NO...I didn't think so.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Reply
      • Paul

        Lets compare apples to apples. In Olympic track 100M run. The FASTEST woman alive's time is slower than the basic qualifying time for men.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
      • JR

        There is more to being a combat soldier than running 2 miles as fast as you can.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
      • Amanda

        Great point! Reminds me of one woman I went to high school with. In PE one afternoon she decided she just wasn't going to stop doing sit-ups, even after she'd met the requirements for some national fitness thing. We all had to sit and wait until she was done – it was a long wait – she did hundreds.

        January 24, 2013 at 12:26 am |
      • Brock Landers

        MArk, let me put it to you this way, draft enacted, how are you going to convince me as a father that my daughter should enter draft because 1% of women want to be in combat? You can't pick and choose who's going in draft, it's by lottery or there will be 1M lawsuits, so again, good idea? you have to be either in government or an idiot to think so

        January 24, 2013 at 9:03 am |
    • OCsurfer

      I agree with you sir, the standards must be IDENTICAL with respect to Physical and Mental testing, otherwise you put soliders lives at risk.

      I'm a bit torn on this entire issue. On one hand I'm all for equal gender rights. But on the other hand, there's a reason we've gone several millennia without women serving as soldiers. It may be distracting to the troops, it's more expensive to administer (male and female restrooms is only one example), and there's been no testing to see how a male soldier will react to a female soldier's presence or if she gets injured in the battlefield. I just don't think this has been thought out well enough yet.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:30 pm | Reply
    • rlc

      OMG!! Everyone will dieeeee!!! Die I tell you! Our male soldiers will die because our female soldiers were only required to do 8 push ups instead of 20!! If ONLY she'd been forced to do those extra sit-ups and push-ups she could've saved her whole platoon! We HAVE to keep these inferior women out of combat-related, 20 push-up minimum areas when they only have 8 under their belt. How dare these women come in to try and save us men with those few push-ups? I say next time a woman tries to save you on the battlefield...ask first! Make damn sure she's qualified with the same number of miles, push ups, and sit ups or tell her to find a man to help you!

      January 25, 2013 at 1:54 am | Reply
  21. Mark of Tennessee

    LOL... i wonder how many children will be conceived on the battlefield or in the fog of war.... This is a bad idea!!!!!

    January 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
    • 0313forlife

      Good touch bad touch, consentual touch? Maury Povich will be busy.

      January 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm | Reply
  22. CommonSensed

    All for it provided they pass the EXACT same physical requirements as men. The same should be said of women firefighters and police officers. This is combat and lives depend on physicality. This isn't discrimination – this is fact.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
    • Bob

      They should just make it like sports – segregated. American women combat troops should go out and fight other countries' women. How cute would that be – all that slapping and giggling – that would be awesome. Then at night, they could have pillow fights in their jammies.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Reply
      • hillbillynwv

        Great post!

        January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
    • anon

      Read the article and look at the part that mentions what they're checking/changing before opening up positions. Hint: it includes just that.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Reply
  23. IAmMe

    About time. Why should only men be killed and maimed?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
    • nh80

      Do you honestly think there were no women maimed and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are there, medics, other roles. Getting zapped by IEDs and ambushes and the like. They're doing their part of the dying but not direct fighting.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Reply
      • Paul

        Define "fair share". Last time I heard it was about 98% men killed. Something like 5700 men to 250 women. Way to step up girls.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
  24. Rightster

    They should "defend" their country, not "fight" for it.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
  25. Unknown

    Some of us can do it, some of us can't. I agree with the policy at least allowing for the opportunity for the most elite female soldiers to be included in combat units, however, the standards should not be lowered. Lowered standards means more people killed.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
    • donna

      So all men and only the elite women, or both the elite men and the elite women?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
      • Bill

        Men that cannot perform the same physical requirements are disqualified as well. It is that way already.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
      • WheresmySandwich

        Most elite men AND women. Those who are able to withstand the same hardships and trials with endurance and willpower to stand together and fight. To lower standards would be an insult to both genders, especially women who want to prove they're just as tough as their male counterparts.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
      • Unknown

        Most people will argue that females do not have the same strength capacity as males, and they would be correct. However, some females, the elite (or any other word you choose to refer to them by) may be able to keep up. Those are who I am referring to. Both of them are elite, the men as well, otherwise they would have washed out because they could not keep up.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
      • Ex-Infantryman

        I read a few of your comments and would just like to say that you are not entirely correct. I get it, these are different times and everyone should be equal period. But the simple fact is that the average woman cannot meet the physical fitness level of the average man. and thats what everything is based off of. I have served as an Infantryman and during that time I have met a few woman who could tear my head off, key word there is few, but most cannot maintain the standards of an infantry unit. For example, a score of 60 in each category of PT is considered passing for the Army except for the infantry and a few other combat units it is 70. Now for push ups a man has to do 49 to get a 70 and a woman has to do 25. This is a perfect example of the difference in standards military wide between men and woman. Another example is that a woman cannot stay in the field longer than a set period of time without access to certain facilities for their health (hygiene wise i.e. periods), this is per regulations. Now none of these considerations are given to their male counterparts. How is this fair or even practical in combat? Also, on a gun team I have carried well over 100 pounds of gear for as long as 18 miles at a time.. You get it. Some women can do what I can do, most can't, but it inst fair to lower standards for them or give them special considerations. Combat units rely on a certain level of camaraderie and brotherhood and whenever anyone is given special treatment it doesn't go over well with others. I say that the woman who can meet the same standards of their male counterparts be let in but no special treatment or considerations should be given. If they can maintain themselves as their male counterparts can then who cares, they earned their place there just like everyone else who had to meet the standards.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
      • spiderlord

        Speaking as a non-military man who has spent years in a cubical working with computers – you better believe many of us civilian men can't meet those physical requirements either!

        I'm all for this, so long as they fit the soldier to the role and not the role to the soldier.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
      • FormerUSMC

        I am for the most part all for the new policy, as long as they have the women uphold the same physical requirements that are used today for men. Men who do not keep to the physical standards get kicked out if they can't meet the minimum for the position. It is not regular men and exceptional women, it's meet the standard or get out. Don't lower the bar to let someone in, work harder to reach the bar.
        The part I do not like about women in the infantry is that men in other countries with different beliefs won’t surrender to a woman, they fight harder and more lives are lost. That was proven in Israel and women still hold most duties just not all of them now. Also enemy K-9 units use the dogs to smell blood, in heavy combat someone bleeding, shot, cut arm, skinned knee. The K-9 gets the smell of blood and the handler lets it go. When the dog stays in one place and barks, they shell that area with no regards for the dog and lives lost to a menstrual cycle.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
      • spiderlord

        That seems like a very niche situation. Is that really a common practice?

        Also, what do you think about the potential for using hormone regulation, like some modern types of birth control, to skip periods for up to three months at a time? You see the "4 a year" ads all the time now – wouldn't that address concerns about menstruation, regardless of whether or not they are valid?

        January 23, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
      • FormerUSMC

        K-9 units are very common, pictures on facebook and court cases allowing wounded soldiers to get the dog back are all over the news. As for requiring women to stop a menstrual cycle, that is a different battle. Would you want to take the chance of dying over it not stopping the cycle? What about the enemy fighting harder and to the death so they won't be killed by a woman.

        January 23, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • TAK

      First intelligent comment I've read all day.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Reply
  26. MTP

    Equality is a good thing. Equality in *everything* – not just selective equality.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
    • AB

      Have you ever served in the military? Saying that women are just as capable of doing the same things in combat as men because they've been "attached" to combat units is ridiculous. Just because you ride along with a cop doesn't make you qualified to make an arrest. 20 years in the service and I can count on one hand the number of women that MIGHT be capable of making it through the required training to become part of the infantry. So far, the Marine Corps is 0-2 with the female lieutenants that tried to get through the Infantry Officer Course and none volunteered for the winter class.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Reply
      • JR

        Exactly, good luck finding a 100lbs woman that can walk in the mountains of Afghanistan all day carrying half of her body weight in body armor, basic load of ammo, water, etc....I was there in 2011 and the CSTs and FETs could not do it. They were ALL females from ALL branches of service. They hindered the combat effectiveness of our unit and destroyed morale with the high school love connection B.S.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
    • Curley

      Yeah! No more ten stalls in a public restroom – two stalls and five urinals is sufficient. Oh and replace the tampon aisle at the store with auto parts and beer. Equality ... wooo!!

      January 23, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Reply
  27. cdc2811

    I served in the USMC for 10 years and was put in combat situations out in Iraq. I applaud the effort to open all jobs up to women, however the physical standard has to be the same. I know that I could not do what the infantry does. My physical attributes won't allow it ( I am under 100 lbs and just 5 ft).

    January 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm | Reply
  28. Dennis

    Does this mean women will be able to get drafted?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm | Reply
    • donna

      There is no current draft, hence no current draft laws. If there is ever another draft, the conditions of who can be drafted will be established at that time.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
      • Ralph Moerschbacher

        Men still have to resister for selective service. This will open people's eyes when women have to register. I am the father of 6 daughters. Equal opportunity means equal responsibility.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
      • anon

        And don't forget to add that they actually *couldn't* draft women for previous drafts because they weren't considered eligible for any of the positions for which they called up the draft -_-. Gotta love the MRAs' selective memories.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
      • John Smith

        Sorry, Donna. All males must register for the Selective Service when they reach the age of 18. Whether there is a current draft or not is not relevant. Females should now be required to register with the Selective Service or suffer the same consequences as their male counterparts. Equality. Let's get it for everything.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
      • donna

        I think if there is a draft it should be equally applied, and if men must register, women should too. However, I think the process of registering for the draft itself is outdated and obsolete. The reason was to keep track of eligible men. However our entire system of monitoring the population has changed and I think it will prove unnecessary.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
      • Wes

        Let's not play semantics. Men have to register for the selective service system which maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription. Men are legally required to register within 30 days of their 18th birthday. If we are going to open combat positions to women, then they should be required to register for the draft too.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
      • John Smith

        donna said:
        "I think if there is a draft it should be equally applied, and if men must register, women should too. However, I think the process of registering for the draft itself is outdated and obsolete. The reason was to keep track of eligible men. However our entire system of monitoring the population has changed and I think it will prove unnecessary."

        What you think and what is reality are two different things. We have an active selective service in America right now, and will continue to have into the future. There are criminal and civil ramifications for males who do not register. These ramifications should apply to women now.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
      • donna

        John Smith, you aren't paying attention to what I said. Registering for the draft is different from an enacted draft. There is NO CURRENT DRAFT. I don't care if you apologize to me or not, it's a simple fact.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
      • donna

        Wes, I"m not playing with semantics, I am being factual. There is no current draft. There is a requirement to register for a draft. They are actually different things. Yes, both genders should register, but no, there are no laws stating that women are not eligible for a future draft.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
      • Paul

        Wrong ANON, When you are drafted it's not for a specific position you are tested and placed at a post that the military thinks you are best suited. That's why all the lunk heads used to wind up in the infantry it takes less brains to tote a rifle than to rebuild an aircraft engine or organize a warehouse. The reason women weren't drafted is because society in general is less squeamish about their sons coming home in body bags than their daughters.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
      • John Smith

        donna said

        "John Smith, you aren't paying attention to what I said. Registering for the draft is different from an enacted draft. There is NO CURRENT DRAFT. I don't care if you apologize to me or not, it's a simple fact."

        THERE IS A CURRENT DRAFT BOARD FOR WHICH MALES MUST REGISTER. I apologize that you cannot differentiate between facts and fantasies.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
      • soul2squeeze

        Its called selective service, all males sign up for it. You wouldnt know about that would you?.....moron.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
      • donna

        JOhn Smith, you can kick scream and shout all you want, but the draft ended and that's a fact.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
      • John Smith

        Donna, you can try ridicule it will not work, dear. Let's review what you originally said:

        donna said

        "There is no current draft, hence no current draft laws. If there is ever another draft, the conditions of who can be drafted will be established at that time."

        January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply

        You stated explicitly that there are no current draft laws. There are currently draft laws, and that has been pointed out to you by others, as well as myself. It's okay to admit you were incorrect. As a woman and a vet you should be above this pettiness.

        January 23, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
      • John Smith

        Donna?

        January 23, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
    • Ralph Moerschbacher

      It should, but the government won't go that far. They only want limited equal opportunity. Ralph Moerschbacher, Captain, USAF Retired Vietnam Veteran (2 tours). By the way I have 6 daughters.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:37 pm | Reply
  29. ttom

    My wife scares the hell out of me when she's angry, I'd feel bad for the enemy if she were fighting.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm | Reply
  30. oh yea

    Awesome, next time you open an MRE you will see a tampon.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • Jason

      You eat tampons?

      January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
      • Curley

        There are non-edibles in an MRE, genius. Go back to your liberal arts studies.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
  31. Who cares

    So long as they live up to the same standards as the men (no half push-ups, in other words) why is this a problem?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • donna

      Half push ups? How insulting. What do you think women in the military have been doing? You act as if they are just now allowed in. Women were already serving side by side with men in combat slots. This just allows them to get credit for it.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
      • ben

        Not true.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
      • John Smith

        Donna,

        Do you know anything about current military physical standards for men and women in the military? Obviously not, so stow your outrage.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
      • Joe

        Not insulting at all. These people are just saying that combat is a different animal than your world of 'equality.' Females in the military have easier physical requirements, which is fine due to their non combat roles. However, in war, the enemy doesn't care that you cannot drag 225 lbs of buddy while wearing 60 lbs of gear as fast as the men can and will shoot both of you. These posters just want the same physical standards. No insulting, just facts based on reality.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
      • donna

        John Smith, I am a vet and a female. So I know exactly what I'm talking about. In which branch do females do half push ups? Is it an AirForce or Navy thing? Because it sure isn't the case in the Army or Marines.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
      • donna

        Joe, What's insulting is the notion that women in the military are currently doing half push ups. Are you really going to argue that that's currently the case? I'm a vet, and a woman, and I can tell you that half push ups were never an option.

        When there are specialized requirements for a specific job, those requirements are applied across the board whether you are a 25 year old female soldier or a 55 year old male soldier.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
      • JR

        Hey Donna I think they mean half as many, which is almost accurate for most age brackets. Besides, push ups are not a great measure of strength, how about some pull ups? Or, 60lbs rucks?

        January 23, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
  32. Bakari

    This is good. Everyone should be able to fight for their country no matter the gender.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
  33. Tim Phillips

    As a survivor of multiple combat tours with the Marine Corps, I can state from experience that our country will suffer unnecessary combat casualties as a result of this political decision. Prior to becoming a state Israel allowed women to serve in infantry but the Israeli Defense Force restricts women from serving in the infantry based on lessons learned in combat.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • ttom

      So what you're saying is your a chauvinist.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
      • tjp44

        and what your demosntrating is a lack of understanding of battelfield situations....

        January 23, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
      • ben

        Actually TTom you are an ignorant horses ass. Take off the PC glasses and come back down to reality. What a disaster. Thanks Obama.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
      • AB

        No, he's saying that from his personal experience and the lessons learned from a country who has been constantly in hostile situations, women in combat positions is a critical mistake.

        What the services never, ever relase is the number of women who have deployed aboard ships and into combat zones and end up pregnant and have to be removed from the ships and combat zones and sent home, leaving their male counterparts to pick up the slack for them.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
    • John

      Did you read the article? They are still considering what to do about special forces and infantry. Seriously, why do people have such bad reading comprehension?

      January 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Reply
      • anon

        ^ pretty much. It says *explicitly* that they are reviewing standards before allowing women in, which means that it's very likely that women who go into combat will have to meet higher standards.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • History 101

      So sorry the IDF (Isreali defense Force) history of Lessons Learned was not read prior to this trigger pull.
      My heart goes out to the Infantry Commander, brothers, who will be faced with untold difficulties and impossibilites that will take their focus off of thier combat mission of protecting the intrests of the United States. May God bless you in your challenges! I am afraid historically, there is little, if any positive outcome.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:20 pm | Reply
  34. The Social Preacher

    Get all the baby makers on the front lines, fellas. Our population is running rampant anyway.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
  35. VRage

    As long as they have to pass the EXACT SAME PT requirements as their male counterparts fine. 1 for 1. No girlie standards. One standard for all.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
  36. ttom

    If it makes our leaders think twice about putting troops in to harms way for ill-conceived wars, I'm all for it.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Reply
  37. TortugasNM

    I can see opening some of the fields up, but not all of them. I spent 4 years in the 1st/75th and 12 years in 3rd Bn, 10th SFG. The 80 lb+ rucks use to kill us. While I do agree there are a few women who could carry the load most can't. Sorry, don't mean to sound bias, but it's just plain facts.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Reply
  38. Nathan

    They are running out of men ; good luck womens; dont forget ur lipstick; .................

    January 23, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Reply
  39. Retired Army

    This is another ploy to avoid what is really needed – the reinstatement of the DRAFT!

    January 23, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Reply
    • LAWL-WON

      The draft is stupid. And only a retired military, or "wannabe" would say that.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Reply
    • brad

      Wouldn't need a draft if we stopped all the illegal wars. Last leagel war after WWII was Afganistan. I have no problem killing to protect my contry, but this new army of ours kills for resources and money, not to defend our country. I will not sign up to be a murderer.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
      • Ralph Moerschbacher

        Brad. The last declared war was WWII. Afghanistan was and is not a legal war. It was not declared. Ralph Moerschbacher, Captain, USAF Retired Vietnam Veteran.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
    • Jason

      Yes, deprive our nation of future scientists, doctors, and engineers.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
  40. psbfla

    A few good women with PMS will make excellent warriors.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Reply
  41. erocks

    While I think a woman can fight just as well as a man, the biggest problem I see is how to deal with "that time of the month". Women in close proximity tend to cycle together. Can you imagine a whole unit going down. Or what about sanitary conditions like when your on an observation post or in a tank for a week or more away from proper hygiene facilities.

    If the military can over come issues I have no problem. That should also mean at 18 women sign up for the draft like men.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Reply
    • cbtx67

      They could issue depo prevara shots, every three months, takes the periods away in most cases and no bombinos....The ortho ring for the term of combat duty....there are ways out.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
      • spiderlord

        My thought exactly. Mandatory birth control might create issues for Catholics in the military, however.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
  42. jamdfh

    So does this mean that everyhting will be equal now? How about the haircut standards?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
    • I'm just saying use common sense

      I don't want women in direct combat. And yes, i am a woman. We are generally not as strong as men, are more emotional, have menstrual cycles and are more compassionate. Men will most likely seek to protect these women and risk themselves. I am all for equality, but somethings need and should be gender specific. I know that some will argue this point, but I cannot be persuaded. We don't need to have deaths and drama before we accept that some jobs must be gender specific. No women on the combat lines. And I will not vote for anyone who thinks it's okay. period.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Reply
      • Kathy0715

        Any time someone states "I'm all for, but.....", you're not really all for anything. I remember when people said women couldn't be fire fighters and EMT because they had menstrual cycles and would cry, I remember when people said women couldn't be pilots because they had menstrual cycles and would cry, etc. Do you think John Boehner has menstrual cycles?

        January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
      • Mikey

        God to have a womans perspective on this, even if it is a little dated, because I do worrry about how some men in the infantry will behave differently in a mixed team when the going gets tough on the battlefield. Part of the training for all will be to wash away those protective/emotional instincts men have towards women for it to work without issues. They would have to be gender blinded somehow. We have so many women in police units today without issues that I am aware of, and there had to be lessons learned that could be shared with the military.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
      • Sue

        I disagree that women are more emotional or more compassionate. And for you to suggest so implies to all the male soldiers here that they suffered no emotional toll while they were in combat. We all know that men suffer PTSD or shell-shock during war. That's because men are human. Women are human too and will suffer the same emotional consequences. But to assume that women are more compassionate, loving, loyal, or emotional than men is a disservice to all mature men.

        January 23, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • I'm just saying use common sense

      haircuts are standard and should remain so. Rape is also a real concern with the women. I know, men can be raped too, but get real the enemy is going to take the women first.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
      • Woman1

        Torture is torture! Men may not get raped but believe me when I tell you they are still tortured. Women will get in if they are qualified and they already know what they are getting in to. I say if a woman wants to and can pass all the tests so be it. I am not a fighter and will stand up for anyone, man or woman, who will fight for my freedom!!!

        January 23, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
      • spiderlord

        I completely agree. Women have the same moral agency and capacity for assuming risk that men do. By not allowing them to make that choice, if they are physically capable, smacks of paternalism. If a woman can do something, wants to do it, and understand the risks and responsibilities of doing it, don't tell her she can't just because she is a woman.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • dave

      Equal rights does not mean equal results. Studies have shown that only the top 5% of women meet the "average" fitness of men.

      That does not mean women can't fight. If a woman wants to fight, and can cut it, I say do it! But let's be realistic. It might make more sense for most women to stay behind the lines and work on appropriate positions. The modern battlefield is going to see the need for thousands of remote pilots, remote sentries, communications and service positions which will need to be filled, and which the average woman can excel at. Send the men up front, with the women who can meet the same standards, and let the rest fight in ways which they can assist them.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Reply
    • Citizen Twain

      Never thought of that one. This is just a way to actually keep females from joining. Reverse psychology.

      January 24, 2013 at 12:50 pm | Reply
  43. Joe

    who let the bulls out?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
  44. Juan

    Just what we needed for the long and cold nights in the battlefield

    January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
  45. One L

    I think it's about time we be like other nations

    January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
    • Sully

      Not being like other nations is why we didn't suck.....till lately.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
  46. sherryc

    As a former female soldier...I say great and not so great. As guppy mentions you gotta know what you can and cannot do. As women typically have less physical strength as men; I have seen women who could physically outdo a man. There are still some areas I think we don't need to cross; i.e. grunts on the ground. That will open up a Pandora's box.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
    • LAWL-WON

      Thank the insane women that were just looking for a lawsuit. And thank the draft when you have to register eventually in the years to come, or your daughter has to register. Think about that psychological damage or a female being held hostage. I guess they wanted it that bad.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm | Reply
      • brad

        A womans life is no more important as a mans. They should have to do their part to defend the country also, wether by fighting, paying taxes, mechanic, medical and so on.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
      • spiderlord

        I'm pretty sure a woman is just as psychologically resilient to being held hostage as a man is. Last I heard, there were muscular differences, but not mental toughness differences, between men and women.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
      • spiderlord

        My bad. I read your "or" as an "of."

        January 23, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
  47. Kathy0715

    Nathan, Africans will fight for Africa. Were you just trying to be cute with your racism?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Reply
  48. I. P. Daily

    Bad idea. I could never accept one of my daughters being killed in combat.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Reply
    • BldrRepublican

      But you're ok if your son is killed in combat?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
      • John Smith

        Men with honor will accept that as a consequence of living in this society. Men die in combat.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
    • omar

      but its ok for your son to be killed.....

      January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Reply
  49. Nathan

    Dead pu ss on the battlefield...............................

    January 23, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Reply
  50. Dustin Goldsen

    Women have been in combat ever since war changed from open field combat to anti insurgency. At least now they will get credit for what they have been doing for a long time.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
    • Nathan

      yes; they need credit; dont they........dead k u nts

      January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
  51. Tyler

    The only ones who want this are the officers who are determined to become Generals. PERIOD. It makes no sense militarily and will only degrade readiness. But then again, our military has been used for social experiments for decades because there is no consequences for failure to those who impose these stupid rules.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
  52. afkbrad

    Every American woman captured since 1991 has been gang raped. I don't see any change in the future. Hajji's rape little boys because they aren't allowed to touch a woman. What do you think a Muslim will do with an American woman? They'll invite the whole town over and gang rape them to death.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
    • Who cares

      Nobody is forcing them into these positions. Why do you hate freedom?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
    • 101TestUser

      Women in the military are being raped every day ... by other US soldiers. Including gang rape. Other Americans are the greatest threat to female US soldiers. The solution is to get these rapists out of the military. Go see The Invisible War if you are *actually* concerned about this issue...

      January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Reply
      • Cindy

        Agreed 101TestUser – not to mention all the male on male rapes that go on in deployed locations.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
    • spiderlord

      Anyone can be tortured to death as a prisoner, male or female. War is war. Inter arma enim silent leges. The fact that there is gender preference for a particular type of physical abuse by the enemy shouldn't justify barring willing women who know the risks from being able to make the choice to serve and accept the associated risks, just like men do.

      Women have the same moral agency and capacity for rational risk evaluation as men. To deny them the exercise of it would be unjust.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:51 pm | Reply
  53. some guy

    Enemy General : Good Grief the american 82nd AAD is here !
    Enemy captain : American Airborne Division, general ? pfft. those daisies....HAH !!....we will have em for breakfast.
    Enemy General : No you idiot, (trembling) its the 82nd American AMAZON Division !!!!
    Enemy captain : Run for your Livess!!!!!
    :)

    January 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
  54. sentinel

    the rest of the world has been doing this for decades. GI Jane is replacing Barbie.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
    • joshua

      No the rest of the world has not allowed females into the Infantry. Find me an example that has worked and still is currently in effect.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  55. John

    Looks like the US government is gearing up for WW3.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
  56. Nathan

    Put those african single mamas out there................

    January 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
    • some guy

      Dont be so ruthless !!

      January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • Norm

      Shhhh....your Fox News IQ is showing again.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
  57. docmark

    Oh that's terrific. So when a female gets shot or otherwise wounded, and that protective male instinct takes over and all sorts of attention is now being given to one wounded soldier, what have we forgotten about?....oh that's right, THE MISSION!!! This is not wise, and I'm glad I'm not in anymore to have to go through the endless additional training and BS sessions about how we have to change everything. No doubt males won't be allowed to curse or fart anymore in the field. God forbid someone gets offended.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Reply
    • Cindy

      Sounds like those men need to get over their irrational emotions and get on with the mission then.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Reply
      • ben

        They can't if their female counterpart can't hold their own.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • some guy

      Next on Discovery.... Move over Airborne !! We take you into the home of americas finest warriors, the American AMAZON Division !!! Enemy trembles at the very sight of these all Gay and Female warriors on the battle field.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Reply
    • 101TestUser

      That supposed "protective instinct" appears to be in short supply among US soldiers who fail to protect their fellow soldiers when they are raped by their own comrades (or when they are doing the raping). Go see Invisible War and educate yourself. Many US servicewomen would be grateful for simple respect instead of hostility and aggression against them by US servicemen. "Protection" is a joke.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
    • Matt

      Men won't be allowed to curse because there are women? That makes no sense. The women I know curse as much as or more than men.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
    • kris

      I suppose there isn't an instinct to come to the aid of any wounded service member, male or female.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Reply
    • Glenn

      800 wounded in the wars 180 or so killed. its already happening. get a clue

      January 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Reply
  58. Watiu

    Bad idea written all over it. G.I. Jane is a movie, not real life.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Reply
  59. polemicist

    Does this mean women can be drafted, too?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Reply
    • Kathy0715

      Are men being drafted now?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
      • Dave

        The draft still exists and men are still legally obligated to serve if and when they decide to use it. Dont think that just because we didn't need it in Afghanistan and Iraq that we wont be drafted in the future.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
      • erocks

        Men have to register for the draft at 18. Women should now have to register too

        January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
      • ToolTime

        Time to start registering for the draft like the rest of us, ladies.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
      • 101fng

        No, but their required by law to register with the selective service.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
      • 101fng

        No, but they're required by law to register with the selective service.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
      • BC

        Every US MALE citizen living in the US must register for the Selective Service when they are 18 y.o. The selective service should also require females to register.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • pbuotte

      there's no draft snce '71. Women can VOLUNTEER

      January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
  60. No one

    An amusing prospect, no denying they would face greater consequences if things go south.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Reply
  61. mike electrician

    Then they need to be able to complete the male version of basic training. None of that female push-ups, and they have to be able to carry a 100 pound pack, etc. Sorry Ladies, combat is not all it is cracked up to be. But you want equality, well here you go, a bullet won't care if you are a male or a female.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Reply
    • Lt. John S

      Why it has to be the man way? Dont you ever get beaten by your wife? Men are always wrong ...or are you not married?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
  62. tw

    why would any women want to fight in the front lines?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Reply
    • Kathy0715

      Why would any man?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
      • Lt. John S

        Because some men are loosers, army is an easy way out with a patriotic excuse.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
      • tjp44

        because they have to..........this is a bad idea

        January 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
      • tjp44

        easy to see who the loser is Lt John.............the are patriots...you appear to be a traitor

        January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
      • hicknog

        i see what you are saying Kathy but think about this. If women are going to the front lines and they get captured think about what terrible things will happen. I don't want any women to ever be raped, and if that means that they can't go on the front lines so be it. I'm fine with women being in the military but they should not be on the front lines.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
      • Cole A

        Kathy, you think you are being wiley and philisophical but you're just adding to the confusion.

        Men must sign up for selective service. There is currently no draft but if there were we would be called up, and women would not.

        No sane person wants to kill others for any reason. But that does not mean they wont to defend what they believe in. The question wasnt why would women fight to have the right to be put into that position when they could do something equally valuable behind the scenes that would better suit their strengths. The answer is ambition. Women want the promotions and opportunities that are given to combat veterans. There are very few women who are capable of lifting a 170 lbs marine out of a fighting hole and to safety or carrying half as much equipment as a man who gets the same training. That doesnt even enter into the logistics of things..sanitation for women is far more complicated and they will require a seprate sleeping quarters. Or do you really think that war stressed young men are just going to behave themselves? Having women at hte front is more expensive, less effective and simply unnecessary. Even the most die hard feminist knows that.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • Jason

      If they want to serve their country and are willing to sacrifice themselves for their country.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  63. Jason McCann

    If they are willing and able I say let them. They know the risks and the macho environment. However they absolutely must be held to the same standards. Otherwise it's a terrible idea.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Reply
  64. Nerohx

    They better have to sign up for selective service too. They wanted equality let's make it equal.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Reply
  65. Tim

    Okay so they are going to open up all combat positions. Great or maybe not. Here is a thought, if all the combat positions will be open, then it is time to change the selective service act and make all males and FEMALES register at the age of 18. We would not want to be discriminatory now would we....

    January 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Reply
    • Cindy

      Yes please. Most women are fighting to register for selective service.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
  66. SJL

    As long as women meet the same (and I mean the exact same) physical standards as men, then I don't see a problem with it.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Reply
  67. woman vet

    As a woman US Army vet I say don't do it. Some women will be able to cope but most won't. I also don't see women on ships. Men and Women are different, and laws won't change that.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Reply
    • Cindy

      You don't see women on ships? In what decade were you in service?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Reply
      • tjp44

        you a vet Cindy? In the NAVY? so basically your opinion is jsut that with no factual basis....

        January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
      • Cindy

        Yes actually. Sorry I didn't post my resume. 5 deployments. 2003-2009.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Ret Navy Chief

      um... Women are on almost every Navy ship...

      January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
      • 0313forlife

        Yes there are female squids on ships, usually on their backs in the hazmat locker waiting for the next platoon of Marines to deploy.

        January 24, 2013 at 11:54 am |
  68. Al

    Women will need to be assessed with the same physical standards for men. In the Marines, that means same number of pullups and same time to get the same amount of points on the Physical Fitness Test, no separate facilities in the field, and so on.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Reply
  69. Army Wife

    They'll be the first ones to cry rape!

    January 23, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Reply
    • Kathy0715

      How many have accused your wonderful husband of rape?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Reply
      • Army Wife

        I won't bother to dignify your post.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
      • LAWL-WON

        A women that wants to be in combat is pretty much a man. Let them get there fill and whine about it.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
      • tjp44

        don't get excited....your chances are no better

        January 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
      • Chuck Fulton

        Obviously Kathy0715 has no clue. After serving for 20+yrs, this is a bad idea. I agree that women should be in combat, but now if they are in direct line units the US military is now going to have to accomidate women. If it works, great, but it will just cost the us taxpayer that much more money for all these special accomidations. After serving 12yrs in the Infantry and then another 8 in Special Operations this will work, but it will also cause major problems......mark my word

        January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • LAWL-WON

      You are truly correct.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Reply
    • Ted

      What an idiotic thing to say.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Reply
    • Joel

      What is the matter with you?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • Santanoni

      I@ armywife, I guess you are worried that your man will stray once he is surrounded by real women....

      BTW, the reason that women in the services "cry rape" is because they get raped. Time to change the culture.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
      • LAWL-WON

        LAWL. Real women I know actually have their periods.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
      • Army Wife

        You are assuming too much.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • Glenn

      how about getting a clue before posting "army wife" the rape rate is pretty high in the military. check out invisible soldiers.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:24 pm | Reply
      • Army Wife

        @Glenn. I should have been more specific about my rape remark. I was not thinking about rape happening within our military, but what would happen to women who were captured by the enemy. Of course, rape happens at West Point,
        and the other academies as well as in the military at large, but in the US we have the means to address that situation.
        A woman captured by the Taliban has no legal recourse.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • Jack

      They have a word for you, too – it's "dependapotamus". It means lazy, fat-a$$ whiners, walking the PX and making Walmart customers look pretty and well dressed by comparison.

      Just so you know.

      January 23, 2013 at 5:05 pm | Reply
  70. ER

    Bad idea....

    January 23, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Reply
    • pockets

      Very very bad idea, can you imagine what would be done to a female prisoner by the Taliban? Its absolute madness to have a woman in that area. Someone is not thinking at all.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
      • Army Wife

        Great observation! Some people posting are really thinking.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
      • Driveby

        what would happen? castration?

        January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
      • Kathy0715

        Honey, women are already there. Don't you remember that debacle with that cute white girl who was supposedly "rescued" by GWB?

        January 23, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
      • Driveby

        I can see where this would be a problem for army wives.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
      • Ted

        @pockets...So its OK for the enemy to torture and kill as long as it isn't a woman?

        January 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
      • Jason

        Oh yes, pamper the women, think of the suffering of female soldiers. Hey what about us males? Getting shot, tortured, and beheaded aren't really pleasant experiences you know?

        January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
  71. ks

    you mean this wasnt taken care of in the 19th amendment!?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Reply
    • Anne

      The 19th amendment only covers the right to vote.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
  72. CorpsMan

    Most of these soldiers are young, dumb, and full of.... Good luck trying to keep them from turning a combat mission into an all out f*%kfest.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Reply
    • Army Wife

      Amen!

      January 23, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Reply
    • Ted

      @CorpsMan...That doesn't happen now? LOL.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
      • CorpsMan

        Yes but now it'll be with women!

        January 23, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
    • LAWL-WON

      Hell. Why not join now and get to nail a whole bunch of highschool let downs.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
  73. Brian Hartman

    As long as a woman can pass the same physical tests as a man, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to be in combat roles. But do I think it's a good idea? No. I'm not a fan of this decision.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Reply
    • Michelle

      I agree with you here. Me(wanting to be in the military in the future) Am very happy to hear this news. However women need to be ready. I think standards should be the same as men.

      January 24, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Reply
  74. bribarian

    The political correctness r3tardation continues.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Reply
    • Ralph Moerschbacher

      If they now can be in combat, they should have to register for selective service, i.e. the draft. I have 6 daughters which means equal treatment means equal responsibility. 2 Tour Vietnam Veteran

      January 23, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  75. The Social Preacher

    Population control.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Reply
  76. sputnikv

    this is a good thing

    January 23, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Reply
  77. Spike

    Ok.... will they be required to meet the same physical standards as males? As a retired Special Operator I am skeptical that any woman can meet the physical standards. This is not patty-cake we are playing here this is real combat. Not "Fobbit operations". Most men do not meet many of our standards. Another politically correct decision out of a clueless administration.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Reply
    • Ted

      @Spike...Do you really have to be manly to be tortured, shot or killed?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Reply
    • Chris

      I agree! I wasn't Special Forces but I was a 0341 (81mm Mortarman) in the Marine Corps for 8 years and would love to see a few of these ladies hump a full combat load along with there personal weapon and a piece of the 81mm or something like a .50 cal receiver for 30 miles or so lol. I watched female Marines who were in shape drop out of those (what us grunts would consider) easy Regimental humps that were like 10 miles and lead by the P.O.G. units while all the infantry battalions were in the rear laughing and joking at how easy and slow those humps were. A nice long hump at a fast pace and a week or more in the field digging fighting positions while in MOPP 4 would change many of these ladies minds about wanting to be grunts. Well I guess this is yet another thing we can blame on "Mothers of America" who are intent on neutering our military.

      This is a terrible idea and I really hope that it doesn't happen across the board. I mean what happens if one of these female Marines or Soldiers gets pregnant prior to being deployed or even worse gets pregnant while on deployment? Problems like that are more of the reason I don't feel that women should serve in combat units than anything else. You see it in Admin and other jobs like that but you really can't have that kinda stuff going on in a infantry unit.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
      • 0313forlife

        I've fireman carried my fair share of meatheads in gear and out, I'm 6-02 280lbs, meathead grunt, and I'd like to see a WM do that for me, no gear. Haven't met one that can do it yet.

        January 24, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
  78. Stephen

    I would feel less safe with a woman at my side in a firefight than with a man. There of physical differences between a woman and a man regardless of whether the government wants to recognize them. This is absurd.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Reply
    • Driveby

      I don't know about a firefight, but i've been in a few barfights an my women did pretty good

      January 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Reply
      • Stephen

        Good for your women. See how they respond when someone is shooting at them.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
    • Stephen Brooks

      Good thing you're not in the military, then.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
      • Stephen

        Yes, luckily I'm not serving any longer. This is nothing more than a PC stunt that will put soldier's lives at risk.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
      • Stephen

        soldiers'

        January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • Ted

      @Stephen...So women have to be physically as strong as a man to shoot back at the enemy in a firefight??? LOL

      January 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Reply
      • Stephen

        Ted I can tell that you've never been in the military. There is a reason that the physical requirements in Basic are so high. We don't just pick up guns and shoot them. Thanks for your contribution though.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
      • GeorgeWBush

        Unfortunately hand to hand combat is one of the reasons why physical strenght and stamina is needed in the military. There will be instances in battle where one has to fight the enemy physically and for a female recruit to overcome such challenges, she has to be in athletic form. If she cannot overcome her opponent physically, she will be violated with the enemy's hand.

        January 24, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
  79. Nikki

    "You're talking about personal choice of behavior". Really? That's how they describe the difference between being gay and being female? Um...... which one is the choice? Just curious.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Reply
    • Ben

      Hi Nikki,

      I think he was referring to Don't Ask Don't Tell implementations as a choice of behavior on the part of the armed forces that could easily be changed. Not being gay. Poor choice of words though.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm | Reply
  80. afkbrad

    Thank God! It's about time America's daughters start coming home in body bags by the thousands. America's sons aren't the only ones good enough to die for their country. I'm glad to see women start shouldering the heavy burden of combat and can't wait to see them drafted for the meat grinder of war!

    January 23, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Reply
  81. jspareme

    Release the Amazons!!! Whoo Ah!

    January 23, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Reply
  82. Santana

    Women get stronger as time pases i am sure they can manage in combat.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
    • Stephen

      I'm guessing you haven't seen female basic have you? Women aren't as capable as men when it comes to physicality. You're wrong.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
      • kris

        And you've experienced female boot camp?

        January 23, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
      • Stephen

        Nope, I didn't experience female boot camp. However, I have seen the different physical standards/requirements.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
      • kris

        You're correct about the disparity among male/female physical standards. However I've known males who meet those standards and are still outperformed by a couple of their female counterparts. Many females won't be able to meet these standards, some will.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
  83. Lanie

    This is a big mistake....

    January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
  84. jonp

    The 4th Marine Recruit Training Battalion at Parris Island, South Carolina – The Magnificently Ugly Bastasrds.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
  85. HG

    As long as they don't water down the requirements to get into various combat positions for women, I'm fine with it.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
  86. keith

    The plan is to send all the fat ones in first.

    Evolution at it's finest.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
  87. Clown

    Women want equal rights as men, so there you have it.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
  88. John

    I would be happier if the United States would keep all our Military out of combat.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
    • Dapple

      Unfortunately you'd have to convince everyone else to behave in order for that to ever happen.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
      • rlc

        Or....we stop sticking our noses in places that don't want us, don't like us, burn our flags, and are doing nothing to us personally because they're too consumed with killing each other in civil wars that we have nothing to do with. We have more people killing each other in our own country over drugs or being an innocent bystander caught in drug wars/gang wars than dying in wars over there. How 'bout we use some military force on cleaning up our own problems for a change.

        January 25, 2013 at 2:28 am |
  89. Liberals_are_a_joke

    What a joke this country is becoming. A bunch of liberals making stupid decisions all the time. Good luck with that

    January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
    • Patriotic Liberal

      My disgust for conservatives, Republicans, Fox News watchers and people who say "you libs", "the libs" "political correctness" is boundless. Your bigotries and outdated thinking is depressing to think about. Luckily, conservatives don't live as long as liberals and suffer from more diseases, so there is some justice in the world. Have another glass of bourbon "Liberals_are_a_joke"!!!!

      January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
      • Anti-Lib

        Your comments have absolutely nothing to do with the subject numbnuts! But you have managed to dance around it and use this platform as a soapbox to blow your lib horn. Wow that's refreshing!

        January 23, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
  90. dd

    nice and now they can all be raped and forced to be AV performers POWs

    January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
  91. Brandon

    WOO GI Jane here I come, oh wait I'm a dude... Never mind I don't want to get shot at anyways, have fun with that ladies.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:41 pm | Reply
  92. guppy

    Seriously?? Like they havent been in forward movement areas already. I know they have because I was over 10 years ago. Now in regards to special forces and such I'm good with that as long as a woman meets the standard, no reduced measures. Need to perform in the same capacity as the guy..period! This would reduce animosity between the males and females and keep the unit strong. I know many of men that can't hang with the special forces measures. Some people are made to do certain things and if you reduce the expectation based on gender it only weakens the force. I know many a woman that can actually be a GI Jane; I wasn't one of them and sometimes you got to know what you can and can't do.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:41 pm | Reply
  93. LeeAnn

    As a former female US Soldier, don't do it!!!!!!!!!!

    January 23, 2013 at 3:41 pm | Reply
  94. Dan

    Lowering standards will get soldiers killed.
    How can a woman carry a big guy out of harms way?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:40 pm | Reply
    • HG

      @Dan

      Haven't you watched Game of Thrones? Brienne could definitely keep up with the dudes...

      That said I agree with you that we should not lower standards or requirements for women. But I think they should be given the opportunity and if they pass the various schools and trainings with the same qualifications as their male counterparts, then it's fine.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Reply
      • MG

        I think they should lower the standards and make sure 50% of all recruits are female. Women should be required to shave their heads though. Give the feminists a taste of real equality instead of more of the ridiculous privilege and special treatment they have asked for and gotten so far. Selective service registration should be mandatory for girls as well. Gender privilege for women must end.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • Driveby

      But, a big woman can carry a little guy

      January 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Reply
    • Kathy0715

      So in your little world, all the men are 6'4", 230 pounds, and all the women are 5', 90 pounds? Get real Danny Boy.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Reply
    • ann

      So how does the 100 pound dude lift and carry the 200 pound dude? Most likely with teamwork. How is that any different?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Reply
    • Jason

      By going through basic training and keeping themselves fit?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Reply
  95. BONED

    Get in the kitchen and make my roast beef sandwich.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:40 pm | Reply
    • Bad idea!

      Agreed!

      January 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Reply
    • Patriotic Liberal

      And spit in before you serve it to the testes-free loser who can't feed himself.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
    • pbuotte

      Get it yourself, Loser. I already serve with Women in uniform, many who can handle this new opportunity

      January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • Matt

      Apparently you're too lazy to make your own? Or not smart enough? I pity the woman who is stuck with you.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Reply
  96. musicoxygensl

    What, not enough men left to die for oil?

    January 23, 2013 at 3:40 pm | Reply
    • Jake DaSnake

      There is no oil in Afghanistan brainiac.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
  97. Unknown

    This is great! At least now other Western nations will have less of a reason to laugh at us.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm | Reply
  98. ug

    It is all political and nothing more.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Reply
  99. U.S.M.C. 1371

    Wow this administration gets worse everyday.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Reply
    • Jason

      Go back to the 1700s.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
  100. Tembisa

    Reblogged this on World Chaos.

    January 23, 2013 at 3:27 pm | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.