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 (3,529 Responses)
  1. Peter

    Women who are strong enough to carry a 100 pound ruck, lift and carry a 200 pound man, etc do exist. They're rare, but they're out there. If Gunnery Sergeant Big Bertha wants to go infantry and can pass all of her quals, let her.

    My fear is the standards will be compromised so that the average woman can join, not just the occasional, unusual woman who actually is strong enough.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:58 pm | Reply
    • Harsh

      there are many men physically less capable than average woman.

      January 23, 2013 at 10:01 pm | Reply
      • ugh

        yep, and those many men do not meet the physical requirements and are unable to enlist in the armed forces.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:25 pm |
      • Cave Painter

        Yes – there are men who are less capable than women. As someone else has also pointed out – they are not in combat arms. The key point is consistent standards related to the requirements of the job.

        I was an infantryman and a cavalry scout in a previous life. Combat is not just about the physical aspects – it is also about mental toughness – the ability to improvise, adapt and overcome your enemy while swimming in a river of your fellow soldier's blood and brains – all the while protecting civilians in the line of fire. It is equal parts sociopathic and empathetic sensibilities – and I am surprised more veterans don't end up with mental problems from being immersed in it.

        There are few men who have what it takes, and fewer still women. For the few, of any gender, I have no problem with them protecting this nation through their service in combat arms. My worry is that overall standards will be lowered in order to fill quotas – which will undermine the capabilities of our armed forces.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:39 pm |
  2. Harold619

    At the present time we have an all volunteer Army and military. If some major conflict, with much larger force requirements changes that and we have to re-instate the draft, this means young women will be drafted from civilian life into combat roles whether they want to or not. As a combat veteran I'd like to say "be careful of what you wish for ladies".

    January 23, 2013 at 9:58 pm | Reply
  3. Mark 5

    It is about time. Russian women in ww2 were great snipers. It doesn`t take much to pull a trigger.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:57 pm | Reply
    • robert lewis

      Great point mark 5. One Russian sniper killed 306 German soldiers including 24 German snipers. She survived the war. Also, women served as fighter pilots. If a woman wants to serve in a combat role, she should be allowed to.

      January 23, 2013 at 10:53 pm | Reply
  4. Grunt

    This will give a whole new meaning when the 1st Sgt tells the company to fall out for a hump.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:49 pm | Reply
  5. Newt Gingrich

    Last I checked, the military is still voluntary.

    So, I'm pretty sure only women who feel they have what it takes to join the military will join.

    So there is no need to worry or have guilt over any woman who voluntarily wants to put her life in harms way.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:49 pm | Reply
    • Newt Grinch

      It's obvious you've not been in the military.
      Just because they volunteer and feel they can do it DOES NOT mean they can

      January 23, 2013 at 10:07 pm | Reply
  6. 2feisty4u

    Reading these comments leaves me quite dispirited, since I realize we as a society have not progressed as much as we thought, nor learned from the examples in the past. Most people against this change are so due to ignorance, prejudice, personal feelings they believe should be forced on others, completely irrelevant issues, etc. They are ignoring the reality of today, and can't discuss the issue on its own merits. Sadly enough, many are the old guard (retired military etc).

    How depressing.

    – An 100% P&T disabled female veteran

    January 23, 2013 at 9:45 pm | Reply
    • Kashidog

      I concur....I am frustrated, saddened and disheartened to read the comments posted here. As a female military officer, I firmly believe that military jobs (as ALL jobs) should be filled by those most qualified to do the task....Set the standards, allow all to test against them, and take only those that qualify. All the way from sniper to tanker to pilot to nurse to load master to platoon leader....Use ALL of the talents of our ALL of our people..Those that have a problem with gender integration need to take a page from those that learned racial integration (which also appeared insurmountable at the time to certain populations). Examine your paradigms people and progress beyond them! Thank you for your service and your sacrifice.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:51 pm | Reply
    • Harsh

      Exactly II am astonished to read some of the comments here. Just didn't expect this kind of narrow insecure mentality even here in United States.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:59 pm | Reply
    • Astounded

      Although some commenters here are just plain old knuckle dragging relics, there are some valid points being made. It's a fact that having women on the battlefield presents some disturbing and unique issues. Imagine the woman caught by the Taliban:animals with NO observation for the rules of engagement. This woman is not just any POW, she's a trophy and will be raped, tortured and likely killed by them. Now let's also think about the woman with kids, should she be able to risk her life and possibly leave her kids motherless? Finally, it's a simple fact that women (most of them) do not have the same strength as a man. This can undermine the unit in endless possibilities.

      Equality is great but this is one instance maybe we don't need equality as much as we need common sense.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:59 pm | Reply
      • Harsh

        hello, open your eyes. There are many kids in our society right now without Moms or Dads or both. Men also can get raped and tortured.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
      • 2feisty4u

        Astounded- I have repeatedly addressed you (and similar comments) below. Not only have women shown that they can carry, but men have just as valid a problem carrying which is why they teach alternative methods. Additionally, your argument about young children applies to men as well.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:08 pm |
    • Getbackinthekitchen

      With a name like 2feisty4u, it's sad that your sense of maturity hasn't progressed much either.

      January 23, 2013 at 10:04 pm | Reply
      • 2feisty4u

        Pls use the grey matter if you can on the topic and arguments, rather than juvenile attacks on the person. You are acting in the way you describe, which makes you a hypocrite.

        Re: my name, I earned it as a sign of respect from the guys I worked with on a flightline overseas in the 90s when I was the only female (and a redhead) on it. I will wear it with pride, something you would understand if you ever served in such a situation.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:21 pm |
      • Astounded

        With a name like "Get back in the kitchen" it's a wonder you can turn a computer on let alone type your silly drivel. Must be a quiet night at the trailer park tonight huh? Not much to do except insult a woman who'd probably kick the snot out of you.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:45 pm |
    • Rendl

      The military is ultimately run by politicians. Politicians are run by the people. The people have access to video and imagery from the front lines, and its often brutal. The people question "why are we at war?", bring our soldiers back. They influence the politicians, the politicians in turn change the military strategy. The enemy know this.

      Seeing male soldiers killed, brutalised, tortured, executed already sways public opinion and the course of war, but it pales in comparison to the impact of seeing the same happen to the countires daughters. The enemy will develop new tactics to exploit this. They will target and abduct female soldiers, and publicise the brutality on Al Jazeera. They will break the back of public opinion, and the public will further influence the course of war – potentially to its own deficit. There is simply no stomach for any more loss – there is enough depression already. We cant afford a nation paralized by PTSD and yet war is sometimes necessary.

      Consider a war with China. Unfortunately for us, their communist rule affords them the ability to both field female, front line soldiers (though they don't need to) and to exploit the weakness of US public opinion (democracy). That is unlikely to end well.

      Fielding female font line soldiers in expeditionary wars will thus, be a catastrophe. The only potential exception being wars with a very clear, defensive goal, such as world war 2 or defence of an invasion.

      – I'm a returned, front line, special forces soldier. I have no doubt women are capable mentally and physically.

      January 23, 2013 at 10:22 pm | Reply
      • Bill

        Excellent points.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:25 pm |
      • 2feisty4u

        Rendl- it's just as affecting when we see videos of our men being tortured. Gender is irrelevant to the level of horror and atrocity. Will society have a difficult time initially? Of course. Will we adapt? Yes, just ask the Israelis. If we let the social aspect stop us from doing what's right, Hitler would own Europe and the U.S. military would not have integrated blacks and women.

        – Thank you for your service!

        January 23, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
  7. Swade

    If women can meet the standards both physically and mentally, then why not? As long as they are not dragging their unit down and can care for themselves and their unit, I see no reason to keep them from it. Our current laws require men to register for the draft in case of a potential large-scale conflict when they turn 18, regardless of if they can handle combat. So why keep a woman who is qualified from it when we have so many out of shape men registering for something that they have no business doing either? As far as being protective, men are just as protective of their fellow soldiers. Never leave a man behind? That involves guys risking their lives to save other men. Medal of Honor recipients have typically done something reckless for the sake of their comrades. When its saving other men, its called heroic, but when it involves saving women, its suddenly them being protective and rash? As far as people having served being some kind of expert on the matter, please note that since most haven't actually been in combat with a female, their so -called knowledge on the matter doesn't make a difference since they have no hard facts and only more opinion. I find it really interesting that women are always cast as emotional frail creatures when, in this argument at least, it is men using their own emotion as reason to keep women out.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:40 pm | Reply
    • Astounded

      As long as they can pass all the same tests (no modifications or lower standards) then fine. But if a woman with young children is crazy/selfish enough to want to do combat then we need a stipulation in place that prevents women with kids from joining. Risking your life if you have kids isn't heroic–it's selfish!

      January 23, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Reply
      • 2feisty4u

        astounded- guess it's "selfish" of a man with kids to serve too, right?

        January 23, 2013 at 9:52 pm |
      • Kashidog

        We already have guidance in place for parents. Single parents, (male or female) are restricted from entering. Dual military must have child care arrangements (family plans) in place. Placing women in combat roles does not change this....women deploy now to combat areas.....they are just not the ones pulling the triggers (in most cases). I have deployed to situations where the shell casings from the Apaches were falling off of the roof of my hut as they were shooting....and I am a female and a mother. We are responsible Americans, mothers, fathers, family members. We believe in defending our country for our children and their children.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:00 pm |
      • Astounded

        Yes, I think it is. Just ask any 7 year old who goes months and months with no father. Daddy is not there for birthdays, Christmases, hockey games etc etc. it's unfair to a child to have a parent in the service. And especially unfair for a child's mother to play Russian roulette with her life and leave her children motherless. It's not heroic, it's selfish.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
      • Astounded

        Kashidog, I feel sorry for your kids. Your loyalty should be to your children first. We aren't fighting wars where our freedoms at stake. Wars these days are manufactured by politicians for ulterior motives under the guise of fighting "terrorism" Bushes "war on terror" a perfect example. Invaded Iraq on the premise of WMD's that didn't exist..

        Anyways, how many birthdays, special occasions etc etc have you missed serving? Lots probably. I'll bet your kids really missed you. I bet you missed a lot of them growing up. I bet you probably regret that deep down. Parents have no business in the army. Kids need full time parents. They need stability and consistenve

        January 23, 2013 at 10:11 pm |
      • 2feisty4u

        Astounded- if we used your logic, we would have the worst military in the world. People would join young and get out when they had kids, leaving us with no experienced leaders.

        Additionally, why should a single soldier fight for the married soldier's family? Who has the real stake in keeping America free?

        I disagree with your statement that it's selfish; in fact, you're teaching your child about values, self sacrifice, and what truly matters. You're telling your child you love them enough to die for them, so they don't have to live in a country like Pakistan or Syria. Perspective is everything.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:56 pm |
      • Swade

        by your logic, men with kids shouldn't serve either. which means we would have a pathetic military.

        January 23, 2013 at 11:43 pm |
      • Swade

        which, in turn, would mean you wouldn't live in a free country and be able to enjoy your life with your kids either... you're just full of contradiction, aren't you?

        January 23, 2013 at 11:44 pm |
  8. Jim

    Good luck to the soldier who finds himself wounded and needing carried out by the "soldier" next to him.
    The heart may be willing, but how many women can shoulder a 200lb man?

    This will surely weaken our military

    January 23, 2013 at 9:37 pm | Reply
    • I Am God

      Yeah there are several different techniques to get a wounded soldier off the battlefield. Anyone that is a part of the military and went through basic training would know that.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:39 pm | Reply
      • Jim

        any one of which will demand a generous amount of upper body strength.

        unless you have a wheel barrow

        January 23, 2013 at 9:42 pm |
      • I Am God

        Jim obviously you don't know much about the techniques.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:44 pm |
      • Clot11

        You are correct in saying that there are numerous techniques. Buddy Carry, Firemans Carry, Walk, drag, bear crawl, etc. However, they do require a decent amount of strength regardless, or at the very least the endurance to continue the task. This is not even taking into account the body armor and kit.

        I am not saying it is not doable, it is doable, but there needs to be unified standards and combat fitness tests to assess this. Physically speaking, from my experience and what I have seen, a woman weighing 130lbs struggles to accomplish the same physical tasks that a male at 130lbs is able to complete. Muscle is carried in different places. Again, not saying it is universal.

        I support the opening of women into combat oriented roles (This is different than combat roles and combat support) however, there needs to be universal standards, not gender based standards.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:49 pm |
    • Swade

      How many guys can shoulder a 200 lb man? There are techniques and other methods of moving a body that the typical fireman carry. Ones that even small people, male or female, can manage.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:44 pm | Reply
    • Jim

      I have no concerns with this if the women are held to the same exact basic training physical tests as the men are.......I doubt that will happen.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:45 pm | Reply
      • I Am God

        Which is what is happening. The military are reviewing everything, so I do not know why you are so worried.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
      • Brandon

        I am not against women in combat, but I have a hard time believing that women are going to be held to the same standard. They don't even have the same boot camp or physical training requirements for a standard PFT. If women want to get into combat roles then they need to step up and prove the doubtful military members wrong by not just barely passing by, but decisively making it through all the same training as the men from start to finish.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:11 pm |
    • Don't fear change

      Excuse me, but may I ask why you would put the word "Soldier" in quotes? Just because they are women does NOT mean they are not equally in harms way or equally a soldier. Just because women are different from men does NOT mean they can not do the same things as them. Lifting 200 lb. men included.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:56 pm | Reply
    • dvworker

      As a female service member, I can assure you that the majority of the males I have had to carry did not weigh 200 pounds and the one that did, no one was able to carry without additional assistance. In battle, there are several techniques to collect bodies, alive and dead. Females who meet the standards are just as capable of doing that as the males are, especially when adrenalin kicks in.

      January 23, 2013 at 10:17 pm | Reply
      • Wanda

        Thank you for your service.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:35 pm |
  9. Lasoldier10

    While I'm torn on this matter. I do agree with you that their are some women in the military that can meet the challenge and their men in the military that can't. But if we are going to truly make it equal then it needs to be totally equal. If you require a man to carry a 80 ruck then the woman needs the same requirement. If your going to have different standards weather it be PT or other requirements then it's not equal. Also if your going to require by law that a male register for the selective service when they turn 18 then you also should require females to do so. Hey equal is equal, right. I know some say allowing this will only make the military soft. I disagree with them on that. I know this is off the subject, but I also feel all soldiers should be paid equal according to TIS and pay grade. They need to do away with the with dependent and without dependent difference in pay. I don't think a civilian employer or even the Federal Government pays a employee without dependents less then their fellow employees that have dependents. Base pay is equal, but BHA is not and also family sep pay. I know many soldier that will marry their best friend and never live with them just to get the extra pay.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:35 pm | Reply
  10. Clot11

    A few key things need to happen in order to prevent the Military from Weakening and in order to ensure equality:

    1) Women are required to sign up for selective Service. Same standard as men.

    2) Same physical standards, no exceptions. That, or base the fitness test on the job. Infantry Must Meet X while Admin must meet Z. Not sure how well that would work though, but the fact is any deviation in fitness standards will weaken the units.

    3) No Special Treatment. If your unit goes to the field for 2 weeks, then you are stuck. No special treatment for showers (Women in basic training were required to return to the barracks after a certain amount of time to shower while their male counterparts remained in the field – this is a report from female soldiers I know. I attended and served in all male units).

    4) Need to have Combat Oriented PT Tests as well, and they need to be put into effect. There is a difference between Fitness and Combat Fitness.

    5) No affirmative action or quotas. They either pass, or they don't. If they don't pass, too bad. If they can't meet the standards then we don't need them putting peoples lives in danger.

    I understand that women have served in Combat Support Roles, and have been attached, key examples being Transportation or MP. However, there is a difference between being in a truck for 12hours (Concept of Death before Dismount depending on the mission; and yes I know there are different missions, but scouts and infantry have a significantly different job than the rest of the support roles) and being required to do a 8 hours foot patrol with the purpose of "Movement to Contact". Just because you returned fire from a turret or dismounted and returned fire from cover, does not mean you are capable or ready to endure the patrols and extended fire fights that some of these guys experience.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Reply
    • 2feisty4u

      Fully agree!

      January 23, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Reply
    • usmc vet

      Agree 100%

      January 23, 2013 at 9:34 pm | Reply
    • Jim

      Absolutely

      January 23, 2013 at 9:34 pm | Reply
    • Astounded

      Totally agree! But one more–if you have kids of minor age then all bets are off. Mothers with young children shoud not be able to do it. A mother who chooses to risk her life isn't heroic, she's selfish. So I'd hope to see something preventing mothers of children from enlisting into combat positions. I have no issue with them doing behind the scenes work but a mom of small kids has no business on the battlefield. I'm sure her kids would agree that they'd rather not be orphaned.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:37 pm | Reply
      • 2feisty4u

        once again, I guess men with small children shouldn't either, since it's equally "selfish".

        January 23, 2013 at 9:58 pm |
    • Donny

      Well stated brother.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:45 pm | Reply
    • Andrew

      Se have just become the weakest fight force in the world

      January 23, 2013 at 9:48 pm | Reply
    • Harsh

      Stop preaching. Women go through more than 36 hours of labor. Women naturally endure physically challenging jobs.

      January 23, 2013 at 10:11 pm | Reply
      • ugh

        that has to be one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever seen. You think a woman's pelvic strength is going to help her in combat? You are a fool

        January 23, 2013 at 10:32 pm |
      • Bill

        Thanks Ugh- you said exactly what I was thinking... all of the Teen Moms gave birth... Snooki gave birth... my mom gave birth- hence, they all have the ability to be combat infantrymen!?

        January 23, 2013 at 10:38 pm |
      • Clot11

        Labor does not equate to phsyical strength. There is a difference between Pain tolerance and Muscular Strength and Endurance.

        January 23, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
  11. Bouttime

    At first women weren't allowed in military at all because they would "affect the mission capability and morale" of the male troops. Then they were allowed but not in areas/jobs that might witness combat because of the same silly reason. Now that female troops have proved they can do their jobs even when bullets are flying over their heads, the military is willing to give all troops equal responsibility along with the equal rights and privileges. It's about time. Classify, use and promote the troop based on abilities, not chromosomes.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:24 pm | Reply
    • Cliffintex

      You are correct.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:31 pm | Reply
    • 2feisty4u

      Hear, hear! Well said. You either meet standards and performance expectations, or you don't. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

      Funny how when it comes to change, whether it be integrating blacks or women, there's always excuse after excuse which is eventually proven false.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:31 pm | Reply
    • Mary J

      Women do not have the same upper body strength and never will. The only way they will be equal on tests will be if the standards are lowered. That is the plain and simple truth.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:34 pm | Reply
      • 2feisty4u

        mary- yes and no. Both men and women on the same fitness program, yes, the man will be inherently stronger. Not being equal on the test, no. Some work out harder than others. Standards do NOT have to be lowered- DoD did a study in the 90s showing that civilian women, after 6 weeks of moderate exercise, could meet the military male's minimum standard. Pls don't perpetuate misinformation.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:03 pm |
      • Bill

        And yet, military women, with months of military PT, cannot pass the basic male PT standard.... weird, huh?

        January 23, 2013 at 10:10 pm |
      • Harsh

        Doesn't matter. Stop making excuses. Physical strength is not enough.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:13 pm |
      • Tim

        2fieisty4u you are correct they did do a study, they took a group of female soldiers and in six weeks got all of them up to at least the male minimum standards on the Army Physical Fitness Test but when they were sent back to there units with in six months of going back to a regular army work day and regular PT everyone of them failed there next test based on the male standards. If your going to quote study's don't just pick out the parts that fit your narrative. I was in the Army then and remember this very well and I am a leader in the Army now and I can tell you for a fact that most woman don't have the over all physical stamina to do the jobs they are about to try and open up.

        January 23, 2013 at 11:11 pm |
      • 2feisty4u

        Tim- actually, they did several studies including the one you mention, but the one I was referring to used civilians. I can send the link if need be.

        However, you are missing the point of the study- women WERE able to meet the standards. You also prove my point about coddling military women- if their job, not a study, required it, they would have kept to those standards. It's no different than the slacker who waits until 3 months before their annual PT test to start exercising.

        The bottom line is that they were able to meet standards. Keeping to it is a chronic problem for both genders unfortunately.

        January 23, 2013 at 11:30 pm |
  12. joe

    MRE's will now have kotex and other female products. i guess you can always you the pad for a pressure dressing???

    January 23, 2013 at 9:22 pm | Reply
    • Cliffintex

      To your point – tampons are frequently carried by black ops to use as an asorbant material. Of course, they're in the field and not sitting behind a keyboard playing badask...

      January 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm | Reply
      • Afghantzi

        Really?
        Tell me more rumors that you've heard.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
      • 2feisty4u

        Awesome comeback, Joe got owned.

        Having been flightline and supported specops, you would crack up at some of the odd things they carry. For example, almost all carry condoms since they are waterproof and can be used for many things.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:38 pm |
      • 2feisty4u

        Afghantzi- Don't consider it a rumor when I'm talking to the guys getting ready to board, and I see it first hand. (Made the mistake of thinking he was bluffing. Won't do that again.)

        I gave you one hint, I'll tell you another. Rifle and elements.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:14 pm |
  13. lawoke512

    Will military hair grooming policies be aligned to promote this new equality?

    January 23, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Reply
    • Kashidog

      Military standards already contain gender specific guidelines....

      January 23, 2013 at 9:30 pm | Reply
      • yup

        it's 150 degrees, two weeks at a patrol base. What are you going to do with the little water you have rationed for the week to the base before higher sends a resupply? Wasting it to wash hair definitely isn't on the list.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:36 pm |
  14. Bill

    I wonder how much this has to do with the fact that over 60% of Americans are Overweight or Obese, and this statistic is expected to continue to climb.

    Basically, the military needs a larger pool of fit people from which to recruit.

    TOO FAT TO SERVE:
    http://www.cbsnews. DOT COM /8301-505263_162-57393115/too-fat-to-serve-military-wages-war-on-obesity/

    January 23, 2013 at 9:16 pm | Reply
    • I Am God

      There is no such thing as to fat to serve. I was big my age, but I joined the military and did better then half of the individuals who claimed they were fitter then most people.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:23 pm | Reply
      • Bill

        Oh, so you were in the Navy. I see. Down in the bowels of some old ship mopping floors?

        You wouldn't last 2 days at Paris Island, chubby.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm |
      • I Am God

        Hey Bill no I joined the Army. I find it funny that you attack someone that has served in the military. It makes me doubt that you ever joined in any military branch in the United States.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
      • Astounded

        Bills an accomplished keyboard warrior, lol.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:43 pm |
      • Brandon

        A. of course there is such a thing as too fat to serve, really? is there an argument for that? Its okay for people to be naturally big, but come on lets face it bad eating habits and lack of GOOD exercise play a role for a lot of people claiming otherwise.
        B. shut up about boot camp Bill, who cares! have you seen some of the people that make it through?... not impressed, also since you brought up boot camp I'm guessing your a POGUE so what do you care if women are in combat roles, you wont see them anyways.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:28 pm |
  15. Maj. Variola

    Its all fun feminism until the
    talibs post a youtube of a chick soldier getting raped. Even better, the leaked US drone video of the incident.

    Folks in glass empires ought not fly drones.

    Rome did not fall in a day.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Reply
    • Joe Lee

      I agree. Putting women on the front lines is a decision which this nation will come to regret. Politcal correctness run amok.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:26 pm | Reply
    • Astounded

      I agree 100%. Women do not belong in combat. I am a woman and think this is a horrible idea. Aside from being a target for crazy sick talibans, we can expect lots of motherless children. Bad enough lots of daddy's never make it back. The feminists can thank themselves when the brutal reality of thier "victory" is realized. It's a sad day.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:26 pm | Reply
      • Kashidog

        Sorry....female military officer here....the loss of any of our soldiers, airmen or marines is sad. Both combat and non-combat positions should be filled based on the capabilities and talents of the individuals in relation to the task. Can a 5'2" male hump a 100lb pack as well as a 6'0" male? No...examine the specifics of the job....can a 5'2" female pull the trigger on a sniper rifle as well as a 6' male....absolutely. Examine the job. This is not a feminist/ traditionalist issue...this is a matter of our country utilizing ALL of the talents of its' citizens. Set the standards....test the individuals against the standards.....those that meet the standards, (regardless of gender) fill the jobs....simple. I am a military mother....I have been deployed 5 times. The loss of me as a mother is no greater than the loss of a soldier who is a father.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:46 pm |
      • Bill

        Retired military officer here... thanks for your service... we do need to examine the job... but, you use the example of a 5'2" sniper - sure, pulling the trigger is one thing... well, how did the female sniper infiltrate in and exfiltrate out? Did she bring in any gear? Ammo? Once she makes her shot, how rapidly does she move to her next position? Is she moving as fast as her spotter? Not trying to bust you out- I am just pointing out that even the easiest looking combat position is a largely physical exercise. Heck, even one of the first branches to get desegregated will likely be Field Artillery - well, the lightest gun is a 105mm, and each ammo case is 70 lbs, and each gun would have about 30-50 cases at their position... If the military keeps the same standards, that's one thing... but, every time they've made changes to accommodate society, they've lowered standards.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
      • heh

        But your ok with fatherless children, how high and mighty of you.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:50 pm |
      • Me

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

        October 9, 2014 at 10:09 pm |
  16. ChiTownArt

    Demi Moore played a Navy Seal. Wonder who will be the first real one?

    January 23, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Reply
  17. scotz

    to me its funny..that the us is tryin to enlist more soilders..when its airpower and nukes that decide the fate of all battles nowadays..imagine u.s can even combat iran now..a single nuke and alot of pple are dead..the days of " a million man army" are over..buildin a smatter smaller military shld b the top priority!

    January 23, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Reply
  18. ddtrey

    Women are a risk to any unit as they are not equivalent in stature or ability. Are there a few exceptions? Maybe, but the true numbers of capable women are not worth the distraction it is causing to try and implement this obvious political move. That a boy Panetta, just wait till you are leaving to do it!!! Typical political puppet.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:12 pm | Reply
  19. 03grunt

    Sure women can join army or airforce bc their standards are a joke. Fat ass army pog's. Leave the killing to the men and the Marines rah

    January 23, 2013 at 9:11 pm | Reply
  20. CelestialOne

    Why would 'rape and pillage' be the province of men. Now women can have it too !

    January 23, 2013 at 9:11 pm | Reply
  21. E.A.G. marine

    Sorry if it offends anyone but as a combat veteran women have no place on the front lines. Regardless if they meet the same quals. As men they will still be a target and men will protect them even if it means someone else getting killed or the mission failing. This is just an all around bad idea.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Reply
    • tethys

      So because men can't control themselves women have to sit down and shut up?

      January 23, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Reply
      • Astounded

        It's a sad reality but the animals in third world countries don't observe rules of engagement. Women will be targetted, caught, raped and tortured. Then you can call her KIDS and let them know what happened to mommy.

        Even if a few women can match the physical requirements (most cannot, simple fact) you'll have men having to risk thier lives to save the women from certain capture torture and/or death. They can't be expected to lift a 250 pound guy off the field and run with him. So whoevers depending on her to save him..well, let's just say there's going to be more funerals.

        This is a bad idea! Political correctness gone too far, to the point of stupidity. Mothers risking thier lives isn't courageous, it's selfish. Women don't belong in combat period!!

        January 23, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
      • common sense

        So just because women want to get pregnant just before or during orders men should have to pick up the slack?

        January 23, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
      • dvworker

        Fact One: Men get raped in the military. Fact Two: Men get raped by the enemy. Fact Three: It takes two people to have a child and it is not just a females responsibility so if "slack" is being picked up by a group of males or females due to the birth of a child, deal with it. Fact Four: That is life.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:50 pm |
  22. Cheerios

    All is well on the battlefield.....until the rider on the red pony shows up, usually once a month.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:07 pm | Reply
  23. sfczeus202

    wow what is wrong with people nowdays? how stupid can you be?? why are all sports teams male only?

    January 23, 2013 at 9:07 pm | Reply
  24. SGTWayne

    A lot of women are crying over this today and as most Republicans believe, women do not deserve to have a choice in what they want to do. Republicans consider women 2d class people who should bow down to men and always do as they say. Republicans are USA's Taliban. They also would prefer Senior citizen forgo medical care, decline Social Security and just exit the earth as soon as possible. A sad group of people that as a disable war vet would spit in face of the Un American pieces of crap

    January 23, 2013 at 9:05 pm | Reply
    • Pam

      Um....do you believe that female Republicans also see females as second class citizens? Your comments are that of a ranting person, not a thought filled and rational person. Get a grip and take in the entirety of the article: there were NO politics mentioned in it. Godspeed.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Reply
  25. 2feisty4u

    Speaking as a 100% disabled female vet...

    About time! Women have already been in combat and proven themselves, contrary to what the peanut gallery is saying.

    Regarding reflexes, DoD studies have proven trained women have FASTER reflexes and better hand-eye coordination. Additionally, fit women are built better for forced marches, even with gear. Regarding the knucklehead talking about women not being able to carry a man in combat, that's been disproven. Not to mention a lot of MEN can't either, not when carrying 75lb of their own gear! Why do you think they focus on teaching various drags and 2-man carries?

    Ethically speaking, I always had a problem with the fact that men had to register with selective service and that men had to go to combat when I didn't. I'm not a feminist nor do I WANT to go to combat, (neither do most men!), but it didn't seem right that I put on the uniform just like them but got excused from our real mission of defending our country in combat just because of my gender. If we both put on the uniform, we both should share the same risk. That means both combat and the draft. EQUAL RIGHTS MEANS EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

    We coddle our military women and that needs to stop. The DoD did studies back in the 90s showing that civilian females, after 6 weeks of moderate exercise, could meet the military male's minimum physical fitness standards. So there is no reason to have two sets of standards. For specops and combat jobs, they either meet the standard or they don't. Enough said.

    For those arguing that kids need their moms, well guess what? Dads are needed too. Neither gender is more important than the other.

    Lastly, don't forget that in some branches and some career fields, some women can't get promoted past a certain rank due to a lack of experience in the restricted fields.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:04 pm | Reply
    • awells62

      Couldn't agree with you more.

      There is nothing saying women are less capable, and if they can pass the same standards as men why should't they be allowed?

      January 23, 2013 at 9:09 pm | Reply
    • Cliffintex

      Well said. There are many women that are as capable as men. No reason they should be excluded.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Reply
    • Meg

      Great post, we run a program for reintegration of female vets, would love to speak with you. Please email me thanks, Meg

      January 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm | Reply
    • EOD

      I agree with 99% of what you are saying. Having said that, the role humans play in war, is much less suited for the female anatomy than it is for the male. Physically males are far superior to that of females and that aspect alone should mean exclusion. A very small percentage of females can make the basic requirements of most basic male marks. However, for the small percentage of females that can make it there is a different angle that has not been discussed yet. There was a study in the Israeli military that showed that men from an enemy unit were increasingly reluctant to surrender to women, often times fighting to the death. This results in a higher body count on both sides, when an all-male unit stood a much better chance of getting them to surrender. The male – female dynamic is apparent regardless of what side you are fighting for. When the enemy knows women are amongst the aggressors attacking at dawn, there morale sky rockets. A large part of any battle is lowering your enemy’s morale so that they can see that defeat is a distinct possibility. This is why snipers are so effective… So I agree men and women should be equal, it’s fair after all. Unfortunately, nothing is fair in war. I support the way it was…

      January 23, 2013 at 9:42 pm | Reply
      • 2feisty4u

        EOD, I have to disagree that what you call the "social" aspect is a valid reason against women in combat. Historically, if we had accepted that, neither blacks or women would be in the service. Will there be difficulty integrating at first? Of course. However, as the old guard passes, the new gen will be used to this as the "norm", and less problems will occur.

        I speak from personal experience. In the early 90s, I was assigned to a flightline overseas, and I was the only woman. We had a meeting, and before it started, the DO came up to me and asked me to make the coffee and "he was real happy the newcomer was a gal so we'd have good coffee finally". I didn't know where it was at or how to make it! Yet when I got out, the first question about a newcomer was not their gender, but what type of performer were they. What a difference!

        January 23, 2013 at 10:36 pm |
    • Harsh

      well said. Looking at some comments, just can't believe how insecure men can become even in a 'so called' advanced country like USA. They don't sound very different from some of the countries that we view as backward in treating women. Men in those countries talk about all issues everyone is going to have as soon as when they have to send girls to schools. This is not a very different. These men have to stop thinking as if they are faultless superior humans. Here is an advice – stop comparing yourself to women to feel superior.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:42 pm | Reply
    • dvworker

      I completely agree with you. As a female service member, I also agree that the military coddles females-they will meet the standards if the standards are higher. Most importantly, thank you for your service and fighting for others who do not even believe you should have the right participate in defending freedom.

      January 23, 2013 at 10:54 pm | Reply
      • 2feisty4u

        Thanks and to you as well.

        This reminds me of the line "I fought for your freedom of speech, and THIS is what you're doing with it!?!". Lol

        I don't think it's a rights issue so much as an ethical one. If you put on the uniform, you need to be prepared to sacrifice the same.

        January 23, 2013 at 11:09 pm |
  26. Edwin Bowers -Old Soldier

    Just watch and hear the out cry when they come home in body backs with their young kids seeing a flag drapped coffin and no mother to wipe their noses and kiss their boo boos. Is it worth it to allow this to happen? If it becomes necessary to reinstate conscription (the draft) in a national emergency, are we going to draft a 95 lb 18 year old female to carry an 85lb pack in extreme conditions. Alls fair in love and war. How combat effective would this be?

    January 23, 2013 at 9:02 pm | Reply
    • tethys

      Out of curiosity, what did Uncle Sam do when 95 lb. 18 year old boys got drafted into the military?

      January 23, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Reply
      • Cliffintex

        They would make him a clerk or some such.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:18 pm |
      • common sense

        Doubles rations and voila he gains 30-40 lbs of muscle throughout training. Most men can develop that fast, most women can't. Women have lower physical standards in the military hmmm I wonder why.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:44 pm |
    • 2feisty4u

      Do you know how many 95-110lb MEN there are??? Using your logic, let's have a more stringent min height and weight standard- for BOTH genders...

      The bottom line is standards. The individual, regardless of gender, either meets it or not. Period.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:22 pm | Reply
  27. Dan

    Time for WWIII, 100 million draft.

    January 23, 2013 at 9:01 pm | Reply
    • scotz

      sorry dude world war 111 would b fought over the skys nt land..nukes war

      January 23, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Reply
  28. Bill

    Most of these women in the military would make fools out of the right-wing Republicans and their gun-loving "militias".

    These right-wing “militias” and “minutemen” are nothing but civilian organizations largely comprised of wannabe commandos, skin-heads and dipsh!t law-and-order types who join up for the paramilitary vibes, the testosterone-rich conviviality of meetings with other faux servicemen, and the patches and hats they get to wear. True !diots, the vast majority have never been out of the sight of their hometown trailer-park, or ever in any real danger….

    January 23, 2013 at 8:58 pm | Reply
    • ddtrey

      Well said mama's boy. How much time in the military do you have?

      January 23, 2013 at 9:02 pm | Reply
      • Bill

        Fukkin 15 years Special Ops.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:05 pm |
      • Patrick

        If you're afraid of serving with women, you don't have to. The Army won't miss a beat with one less bigot to drag it down.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
      • MarkinFL

        One does not have to be in the military to recognize the difference between a soldier and a yahoo. I work with a retired Marine Corp General and several other retired officers(Navy and Marine). My sister and Brother-in-Law are both retired Marine Corp officers. I have never served and do not pretend to have the personality for it. Unlike so many chicken-hawks in this country.

        January 23, 2013 at 11:15 pm |
    • Cheerios

      isn't that nice...15 years "spec ops". The great thing about the internet is that anyone can pretend to have a big d**k. Oh, and I personally shot OBL, so there.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Reply
      • Bill

        Look, buddy, I was dropping into Danang while you were eating Cheerios out of your Nazi skin-head Dirk's ass. You shaving potatoes way in the back mess tent?

        January 23, 2013 at 9:25 pm |
    • Cliffintex

      15 yrs Spec Ops – BS. You're a keyboard warrior and not particularly good.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:20 pm | Reply
      • Bill

        Look there Cliff-Clavin, you one of those Corporals way in the back doing administrative tasks behind a desk? I hear you guys like wearing a glittery pearly white necklace.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
  29. JackL

    Alright!!!! With so many more soldiers, its time to invade Canada...

    January 23, 2013 at 8:55 pm | Reply
    • David Thornton

      Well, you know JackL, the definition of a Canadian is an unarmed American with healthcare. But if you really need to invade, come on up. You are welcome to Winnipeg or Edmonton in January, just so long as we can go to Orlando.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:04 pm | Reply
      • JackL

        I like Tim Horton's. Plus we have our defense industries to support. Canada is a logical choice – Spock would say so. ;-)

        January 23, 2013 at 9:24 pm |
  30. Dan

    This is ok....IF and ONLY if it is the EXACT same PT and entry standard. You need to know that the soldier or marine next to you can pick you up and pull you to safety if you get hit, and that he/she will be able to lift/carry whatever everyone else needs to lift/carry so the fire-team/squad/platoon/company doesn't suffer because of her/his weakness.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:54 pm | Reply
  31. Vandikar1

    Fine by me, if the standards are the same for both men and woman, and the woman can pull her weight, so to speak, let her in. My wife shoots good enough to make cops look over and give her a quick nod! But she couldn't haul 20 lbs more than about 20 feet! If the woman call compete with the soldier on equal ground, far as I'm concerned, she can roll over Taliban with the best of um.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:54 pm | Reply
    • Harsh

      iit is not about competing with fellow soldier. It is about service. Stop comparing yourself with women. Learn to include and work with women. They are your fellow citizens.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Reply
  32. john

    make women do the same standard as men then we wont have a problem. problem is that they cant and they will lower the standards so they can pass. the military is weak!

    January 23, 2013 at 8:52 pm | Reply
    • Krisagi

      wow your idiocy shows itself with every post you make. do you have any valid point to keep women from the front line or do you just have excuses?

      January 23, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Reply
      • Veritas

        Pointing out the fact that most women don't have the physical strength to ensure they aren't a burden on the front lines is idiocy?

        January 23, 2013 at 9:29 pm |
      • common sense

        Yea real idiocy. Women's physical standards are lower in the military right now.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:49 pm |
      • Krisagi

        @Veritas if thats the only excuse to keep women from the front line then yes it is idiocy.

        January 24, 2013 at 4:28 am |
    • Harsh

      You are also physically weaker than two men. Your thinking is weak. Actually military is going to be stronger.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:50 pm | Reply
  33. john

    there will be no more elite units in the military anymore. allowing a female that has to only do 18 pushups in the unit is laughable. china is laughing right now!!!

    January 23, 2013 at 8:49 pm | Reply
    • joe

      the mighty 7th Cavalry is going from Garry Owen to Mary Owen. aggghhh!!!!

      January 23, 2013 at 8:54 pm | Reply
  34. trex

    ........jan Brewer................we have a job for you............................

    January 23, 2013 at 8:49 pm | Reply
  35. Nutz

    As so ends the age where women were exempt from the draft.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:48 pm | Reply
  36. john

    wait till a female gets captured then we will think hard about this

    January 23, 2013 at 8:46 pm | Reply
    • combatveteran

      Already happened

      January 23, 2013 at 8:52 pm | Reply
      • joe

        who was this woman???! i hope you are not referring to jessica lynch as what ACTUALLY occured is totally opposite from what the media reported.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:06 pm |
      • George

        Major Rhonda Cornum, for one. Her helicopter was shot down trying to rescue another pilot. She had two broken arms and a bullet wound, was kept in an Iraqi jail, and was raped by an Iraqi soldier. She describes the rape as the "least" of the things that were done to her. This happened way back in the 90's, and somehow the U.S military still exists! No men threw the mission to the wayside trying to rescue her. She was handled the exact same way as any other POW situation.

        There are many more; google is your friend. Female POWs and MIA already exist, and you're very naive that's not the case. It's crazy how many posters on this board seem so up in arms about changes to the military but have no clue what's already happening in the military.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm |
    • Vandikar1

      They really should issue suicide pills to our soldiers. I sure as hell wouldn't want to get captured in most of the countries where we fight.

      Option 1) Have my head slowly cut off by a dull knife.
      Option 2) Quick painless death with cyanide

      I go with option 2! and I'm a guy. Thinking girls may have a worse deal.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:58 pm | Reply
      • awells62

        Suicide Pills? Are you nuts? We have training to get out of those kind of scenarios.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
    • Harsh

      none of your business. You are not here to protect women. Stop feeling the need to control what women should do and should not do.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:54 pm | Reply
  37. john

    equal is same PT standards and no special treatment. this will make our combat forces weak. hopefully my 75th ranger regiment will stay off limits to females

    January 23, 2013 at 8:44 pm | Reply
    • awells62

      If they can pass the actual exact same standards as the men, why shouldn't they be allowed? I think for these kind of roles though they should have to pass the exact same standards, Ruck marches with 80lbs of gear, all the push-ups sit-ups and pull-ups too. If they can't do that they can't be expected to live up to whats currently required of the Men in the field and that puts the mission at risk.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:57 pm | Reply
    • mvw

      already happened multiple times....what's your next dumb argument?

      January 23, 2013 at 8:58 pm | Reply
  38. mamanas

    I just saw what a E5 makes in the Army. They won't have to worry about me serving, the pay could not cover my monthly hair and nail cost. Let the men go and die.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:44 pm | Reply
    • Dp

      "Let the men go and die?" So you can go get your precious hair done? Feel pretty good about that hair don't ya MAMA?

      January 23, 2013 at 8:48 pm | Reply
      • mamanas

        Got to look good for the men who decided not to serve. Plus that pay really indicates the value we put on people serving in the military. Treating them like school teachers.

        January 23, 2013 at 8:52 pm |
    • awells62

      You should try donating some of that money to charity. As an E-3 right now, I make ~2800 a month living off base. If you're spending that much on your hair your priorities are all messed up.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Reply
  39. Dp

    So what do you tell the other MEN in your platoon that we had to wait for the stargler trying to keep up with a 60lbs ruck sack on? Should we just wait? Or is this soft America going to alter the trng so it adheres to women trng with men?

    January 23, 2013 at 8:43 pm | Reply
  40. john

    this is simply a political move and little thought was put in this. when they see the drop out rate for females, then they will rethink this

    January 23, 2013 at 8:41 pm | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      "little thought". That alone shows how little you know about this topic.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:03 pm | Reply
  41. joe

    girls in combat???? 10 days without showers and they will all have yeast infections.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:41 pm | Reply
    • mamanas

      I think women can figure out a way to keep clean and fresh. She'll have to spend more time trying to keep fellow soldiers from trying to take the goods.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:49 pm | Reply
  42. Taylor

    I'm ashamed of the Americans who say the pledge, use our money and land, and live under the law that proclaims every Americans' EQUAL, unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness who denounce women in combat. If women want to stand up and fight for YOUR rights and protection, they deserve to. Women are as physically capable as men. People serving in our military do not go through months, even years of training and boot camps for nothing. If a someone fails the tests to serve, they will not fight in combat whether male or female. Women are capable if you give them the chance. Either way, support or denouncement, American opinion will build women's cause and determination to prove their patriotism and skill.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:41 pm | Reply
    • gabe

      you obviously have never been in the military or can comprehend any asspect of the matter so please sit on the sidelines and watch as you have been for many years now.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:55 pm | Reply
    • ddtrey

      Hey Taylor, your next shift at McDonalds starts soon. Better run off and go make fries like a good little girl.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Reply
    • CSully

      Is anyone thinking about how this will effect all of the women serving in the armed forces that DO NOT wish to be put into combat positions? Certainly we are all aware that even though we have an all volunteer military, not all of those currently serving in combat positions choose to be there. So with the inclusion of women who choose to serve in combat we are including ALL female service members to the possibility of being non-vol into those jobs. This possibility may deter some women from continuing military careers and may deter some from considering military service at all.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Reply
      • 2feisty4u

        If a woman puts on the uniform, she accepts the same risk as a man. She will either meet standards, or not. Period.

        January 23, 2013 at 11:20 pm |
  43. john

    you men in here that agree have no balls and have never served in a combat unit or special ops unit. so your opinion doesnt count

    January 23, 2013 at 8:39 pm | Reply
    • Lee

      Rangers aren't special ops bro. try again light infantryman.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:00 pm | Reply
      • Bill

        Actually, Rangers are under Special Ops Command.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:16 pm |
      • Ryan

        While rangers may not be true blue special forces, they fall under USSOCOM command, and are listed as SOC (Special Operations Capable). they are an Elite Infantry unit.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:20 pm |
      • Steve-O

        Shut your hole. Rangers lead the way.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:53 pm |
  44. joe

    terrific.... now i bet MRE's will come with kotex and other female products. (sigh).

    January 23, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Reply
  45. Yago

    I hope this forces our Military and Government to start respecting the Geneva Convention. We need to force other nations and non-goverment armies, guerrillas, terrorist groups to respect the Geneva Convention so our Combat Women are protected if they fall as POW. As a powerful Army we need to give the example and avoid the barbary of RAPE as a war weapon. If other do, they lose the Legal and Moral grounds, if we do, we end at the same level of those we consider lower or uncivilized enemies, We should also force our Allies, as Israel, to respect the Geneva Convention.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Reply
    • Ignominious

      Wouldn't it be better and simpler to just do our best to keep them out of harms way? It's really naive to expect all warring parties to follow rules. IT'S WAR!

      January 23, 2013 at 8:44 pm | Reply
      • Yago

        so to us not follow the G. Convention? This is the real reason behind this deist ion.... from CNN itself http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/

        January 23, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
  46. Bad Idea

    Scissor squad, ten-hut!

    Right-shoulder, maxi-pads!

    Are there really enough lesbians in the US to fill out even one infantry division?

    January 23, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Reply
    • joe

      as per lesbians in the army, the bull or butch (male) is good as she/he can fight but the "Willamena Woo Woo" (girly-girl) has no business in the army as once she breaks a fingernail or gets dirty she will have an emotional breakdown and start crying and pouting. the butch is ok but definetly not the girly-girl.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:51 pm | Reply
  47. Ignominious

    One more step to a more vicious and callous society. The suicide rate for male returning vets is high; what do you think combat conditions will do to females?

    Do we really need or want combat conditioned women?

    January 23, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Reply
  48. BigGuyWithABigBazooka

    I was on a battleship during Fleet Week,and there were a TON of females.Alot of the security gurads came from the shup and they were holding large machine-guns.Doesnt that count?If theiy work on ships?Battleships,frigates,and crusiers?

    January 23, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Reply
  49. john

    other countries women are way rougher than our lazy, out of shape, pampered, american women. everyone knows this

    January 23, 2013 at 8:37 pm | Reply
  50. BigGuyWithABigBazooka

    what will happen in the canteen? It's a boys club,and lots of lewd things happen?Will she complain and be a tattle-tail.These situations help to calm down eachother,but if the female is all sensitive,then the whole team becomes overly stressed and can't focus on their new mission.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Reply
  51. john

    people that make these dum ideas have no clue what combat is. the soldiers that have been know and think this is a bad idea

    January 23, 2013 at 8:34 pm | Reply
  52. George

    I'm laughing at all the people so upset about this, or who think it is some huge change.

    News flash: there are already millions of female soldiers "attached" to direct combat units. Do you know what that word "attached" means in the military? It means that for all practical purposes, you're part of the unit. You do all of the same things they do. You're just logged differently as a way of ducking the legal requirements. This has been going on since the war began.

    Nothing is actually changing except the paperwork.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:34 pm | Reply
    • Ignominious

      Both are a mistake.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:41 pm | Reply
      • 2feisty4u

        Speaking as someone who has completed CMRT (Combat Medical Readiness Training), George is absolutely correct.

        Ignominious- since you feel its wrong, guess you don't want medical aid on the field if only a female is available? That's ridiculous- when it happens, you won't care about my gender, you'll just want my help.

        January 23, 2013 at 11:40 pm |
    • ddtrey

      Yep, plenty of women to do the paperwork...as that is what they are good at.

      January 23, 2013 at 9:08 pm | Reply
      • George

        Human Resources paperwork rangers are usually guys. Medical fields are where most of the women are to be found.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:14 pm |
  53. Joe

    FINALLY the U.S. joins the 21st century. I know of several women who are just downright scary! I'd be running from them if I were the Taliban!

    January 23, 2013 at 8:33 pm | Reply
    • 2feisty4u

      Joe- I was active before and after 9/11. Let me tell you, some of the gals seemed more ticked off than guys. Some deployed and saw how the women were treated, and wanted to go BACK. Yeah, I'd be scared if I was the Taliban. Can you imagine how one of those a$$h0le$ would feel getting it from one of our women? Poetic justice, I tell you.

      January 23, 2013 at 11:59 pm | Reply
  54. mamanas

    Has anyone explained how or why Israel has been successful with having women serving in combat units. (Without making a racist comment)

    January 23, 2013 at 8:32 pm | Reply
    • tethys

      define "successful". They still only do light infantry and for a fraction of the time their male counterparts do.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:33 pm | Reply
    • Joe

      Israelis live under a constant state of threat. They are a violent people by their very nature.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:33 pm | Reply
      • mamanas

        Really?

        January 23, 2013 at 8:37 pm |
    • tethys

      Don't take my answer the wrong way. I still think this is a good move. The IDF mostly starts filling positions from the bottom with women freeing up the men for actual fighting. It's only been recently that they have moved women further up the line simply because they don't have that many people to begin with. The US military applied this strategy somewhat in WWII, enlisting women in huge numbers to work supply, maintenence, clerk, etc to free up men to fight. But when that war was over they simply booted all the women they begged to volunteer and shoved them back into the kitchen pretending that they never served their country.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:36 pm | Reply
    • scotz

      isreal soilders dnt serve far away from home thats why

      January 23, 2013 at 8:56 pm | Reply
    • sfczeus202

      There is only one infantry battalion in the IDF (Karakal) in which women are allowed to serve... This battalion has never yet taken part in combat.. I wonder why..

      January 23, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Reply
  55. Zoe79

    I don't know why people are acting as though women in combat are anything new. Women have always contributed in every war historically, not just in this country but over centuries in countless others, as well. Both as warriors, nurses, and other important roles. Archaeologists dig up ancient female skeletons buried with their weapons, many Native American tribes had female warriors, women dressed as men in the Civil War to fight, lest we forget Joan of Arc leading troops to major victories... Just because historical school textbooks have decided not to teach little boys and girls of women's contributions in war (and other areas) doesn't mean it hasn't been part of life on this planet for eons. This is America, 2013. No big deal.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Reply
  56. Chad

    I'll be impressed when women have to sign up for Selective Service. Until then, this is just posturing.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:27 pm | Reply
    • Keith B Rosenberg

      You said what I was going to say!

      January 23, 2013 at 8:29 pm | Reply
  57. mh53j

    All physical standards need to be the same for everyone now. An ammo can, artillery shell, or anything else isn't any lighter when a woman carries it and the unit cannot be compromised.

    Everyone also needs to sign up for selective service now. And I mean every U.S. citizen when they turn 18, men and women. If they don't then they need to be denied student loans and anything else that requires selective service verification. I fully expect to see all the women of fighting age, regardless of mental or physical capacity, sign up and no grandfathering the 20-30 somethings out.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:25 pm | Reply
  58. Rob L

    This policychage is a big deal. I am for equal rights and opportunities for women. If this policy is enacted then women should be requried to register for selective service like 18 year old men do.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:25 pm | Reply
    • Zoe79

      When any policies change, procedures and integration take time and testing to work out. This is not going to be an overnight transition nor is selective service options. Changes do come in steps and stages.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Reply
  59. nc1965

    Reality will sink in when it's discovered that most women don't have quick enough reflexes to jump on a live grenade, totally covering it before it explodes.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:24 pm | Reply
    • Zoe79

      Yes, because women aren't self-sacrificing. Guess who wiped your bum all those years?

      January 23, 2013 at 8:36 pm | Reply
  60. john

    why give a infantry slot to a female that has lower standards than a man. waste of a slot and puts peoples lives at risk

    January 23, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Reply
    • tethys

      so you'd leave an infantry slot unfilled because no man will enlist?

      January 23, 2013 at 8:24 pm | Reply
      • mh53j

        I would. Better not to have someone in the slot than having to lose one or two others to support that one person. Just having one other person support someone else just doubled your loss of manpower.

        January 23, 2013 at 8:31 pm |
      • matt

        No slot will be unfilled in the Innfatry expecially for leadership positions. Right now the military is preparing for a downsize that makes it even more competative. People do not know what they are asking for. There is a difference between a Soldier getting killed ona "mounted" patrol vs a 10 day persistant engagement operation. We are not Isreal nor are we Canada. This is the begining of the end of the "greatest combat force" on the planet. Standards will be fall and people will die. Our nation was weakend today.

        January 23, 2013 at 8:42 pm |
      • Bad Idea

        If women are in the grunts, trust me, no "slot" will go unfilled.

        January 23, 2013 at 8:45 pm |
      • christoph

        women only account for 14% of the military forces. Every branch is overmanned and people are on over one year waiting lists to get into the military. Theres defiantly no problem with filling these infantry spots with men.

        January 23, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
    • nc1965

      I agree.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Reply
    • Kashidog

      No, you do not lower standards....Everyone seems to think that this will mean lower standards....No. This means that you set standards that all must test against. I no more want some 5'2" female that can't lift 50lbs in a physically demanding position than I want some 5'2" slightly built male. Now, on the other hand, put that 6' female in there anytime....IF she can meet the standards! Utilize the standards correctly....this is no more a world-changer than those that thought that allowing African Americans into the military would lower the standards...no more than the fear that allowing gay Americans into the military would change how we operate....(guess what ? it hasn't changed anything....) Utilize all of our talents as a military and a country. Get those women who are awesome snipers into sniper positions....if a girl can drive a tank like she stole it; get her in there! EOD takes guts and often a careful hand....get her in there! Quit equating capability with anatomy....its archaic and shows your ignorance.

      January 23, 2013 at 10:13 pm | Reply
  61. Lee

    I want to be President........that does not mean I should be.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Reply
  62. dmg2fun

    Great, can hear the radio chatter now. Hey in the next supply drop do you want mini or maxi?

    January 23, 2013 at 8:22 pm | Reply
  63. john

    everyone knows women have low PT standards and special treatment. want to be equal, then do the same standard as a man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    January 23, 2013 at 8:22 pm | Reply
  64. nc1965

    Women. The feminist movement has just done a disservice. They’re sending you to you deaths, leaving you kids motherless and to later be raised by you man’s next woman.

    Well, “be careful what you wish for”.

    Well, I'm telling my nephew to unenlist. He's survival rate has just decreased.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:21 pm | Reply
    • Lee

      Israel has had women in combat roles for years haven't hurt them yet

      January 23, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Reply
      • scotz

        truth is unlike the USA..all of isreal's war where women are involved are defensive..so the women arent or cant be captured and so far so gud isreal has won all its wars since 1948

        January 23, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
    • ffff

      @lee you flawed feminist twit...Israelis require everyone to serve due to the fact they are surrounded my millions that wold like to destroy them. Israeli soldiers training is not anywhere as difficult as ours even in Army basic infantry.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Reply
      • Ryan

        I'm Afraid i have to disagree, man for man, an Israeli infantry platoon, without support of any kind, is vastly Superior to almost any other country when it comes to Urban Warfare. their training is much more difficult and riggourous than standard US Army or Even Marine Corps boot camps. plus their force is smaller, they have more money concentrated into a smaller force, therefore they can afford to train each soldier better.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:34 pm |
    • Mage Grumbley

      It is inherently better to be fatherless. Duh?

      January 23, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Reply
    • Navybrat

      You are an idiot.....how many kids are left fatherless?? Too many and I have seen it!!! Get rid of all the weak and scared men who are decreasing your chance of survival too!!!!

      January 23, 2013 at 8:45 pm | Reply
    • meg

      who needs men, when woman will destroy each other... if you ask me it has never been men they are just a tool in which woman use to control other woman... just a thought...

      January 23, 2013 at 10:23 pm | Reply
  65. john

    all i see are females getting out of PT everyday because they have a medical problem. that wont fly on the battlefield.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Reply
    • tethys

      Do you honestly think those women are going to try for combat slots? The article makes it pretty clear these positions would be voluntary. Just because a few women joined to get college money doesn't mean they all did.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:22 pm | Reply
    • combatveteran

      Hahahahha and i see p*ssya$$ shamtastic profile riding males in the ER everyday what is your point? Oh thats right you have none

      January 23, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Reply
  66. kenny

    Nigeria did it first and now the Americans have copied that, later they will claimed they did it first..

    January 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Reply
    • scotz

      the nigerians wont put them in d field..dnt b dull pls

      January 23, 2013 at 9:04 pm | Reply
  67. MikeJ

    The Israelis have one of the toughest militaries out there, and they have women in every job. Why not us too, I guess.

    The trick is going to be equal standards. I've seen some women are very tough and strong, more so then average man. The thing is, those exceptional women should be the only ones doing this. As long as they don't lower the standard so EVERY woman can, I'm okay with this.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:18 pm | Reply
    • wahoo69

      Agreed... Standards CANNOT be compromised.

      The NFL and NBA would dry-up and whither away if either were forced to comply with social wish-lists or forms of affirmative action(s), versus the standards they have in place and that is just meaningless sports...

      Imagine the ramifications of doing the like with our military and national security...

      January 23, 2013 at 8:53 pm | Reply
    • wahoo69

      Not knocking your post MikeJ, but Israel has compulasary service for all citizens who are physically and mentally able to. This is due to the nature of Israels situation of being surrounded by hostile nations and close-proximity threats alike.

      They are in an active defensive mode 24/7, much more so than the U.S. or any NATO ally...

      January 23, 2013 at 9:01 pm | Reply
    • scotz

      dont u get it..isreal is defence only..its soilders mostly fight in its own land..so capture is nt a possibility and..women would do well but they shld serve at home..thats safer..if nt..american women pow's would soon b carryin different nations children cos rape is real!

      January 23, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Reply
      • JT

        Scotz, you spell like Shaq and your grammar is horrible. Learn to write properly before you post anything.

        January 23, 2013 at 9:44 pm |
  68. Babak from LA

    We honorable for a woman to want to do this and they must have the right to do so. With that said, I fail to see the reason behind it. Is the military opening this up to women for equality reasons or because they need more recruits?

    January 23, 2013 at 8:18 pm | Reply
    • Rob

      The military hardly needs help recruiting.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Reply
    • Babak from LA

      oops .. I meant to say VERY honorable not We ... Sorry bout that

      January 23, 2013 at 8:22 pm | Reply
  69. Sammy Z

    So lets see, there's two types of people posting here: Those that approve but say the standards should be the same for both men and women and those that spew off something about the Military has gone down the drain or women are too weak for combat.

    To me it's pretty easy to see who is and is not in the military (Currently). To those that say this is a bad decision, when you serve, you'll learn that you'll find a different viewpoint on things.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:18 pm | Reply
  70. mamanas

    Cavemen and a few "girls without brains".....it will be ok. Go scratch yourself, drink some beer and watch some adult movies. If other countries can make it work, the US will make it work even better.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:18 pm | Reply
  71. john

    put a woman in a ranger stress shoot. see how bad that goes

    January 23, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Reply
    • infantry guy

      word

      January 24, 2013 at 9:24 am | Reply
  72. frankiesweep

    Special forces aren't so special anymore it seems.. No longer the best of the best... Just a liberal wet dream.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:15 pm | Reply
    • Sammy Z

      I work with Special Forces. Do you want to know who they had directly embedded in their teams? Women, and their "ladies" more than held their own.

      Oh and you're being childish.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Reply
  73. peter

    lets see a female do an airborne jump, a 20 mile road march with 50 pounds, and a live fire exercise at the end of it. RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!!! women dont belong in combat

    January 23, 2013 at 8:15 pm | Reply
    • OldManChawin

      Tell that to the Israelis. They have female combat soldiers, and they've never lost a war. Unlike, say, the Americans, with only male fighters.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Reply
      • scotz

        usa neva fought a defensive war..im sure u'd enlist for d army if usa was attacked..think abt that..and isreal has lost its war in lebanon..anyway

        January 23, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
    • Lee

      What makes you think a woman can't do that plenty of women are strong enough to cut it in combat the Israelis have been doing it for decades

      January 23, 2013 at 8:17 pm | Reply
    • combatveteran

      B!tch please. You are living a damn fantasy. When is the last time you did that?

      January 23, 2013 at 8:24 pm | Reply
      • GIjoePR

        LMAO...nice

        January 24, 2013 at 9:31 am |
    • Jack

      A hell of a lot of men can't do that either. Yet I notice we aren't completely banning men from combat roles.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:32 pm | Reply
      • 2feisty4u

        everyone seems to miss that point...

        January 23, 2013 at 11:49 pm |
    • Teri

      Women are already in combat and have been since the Revolutionary war. In fact, as of Feb 2011, two servicewomen have been awarded the Silver Star, the military's thrid highest medal for valor in combat. I watched a female airman recevie the Bronze Star for valor in a road-side attack in Afghanistan where she not only returned fire, but saved 2 of her fellow airmen. I personally have female friends who have engaged the enemy as fighter pilots... you better believe there are women in combat roles. We should be proud of any American who's willing to put their lives on the line for our country and our freedoms... I agree, women should be able to meet the physical standards expected of men in traditional combat roles, but don't underestimate the differences and stregths between genders, too.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:42 pm | Reply
    • Jason

      Ever seen one of those women who competes in triathlon events?

      January 24, 2013 at 1:19 am | Reply
  74. ChrisM106

    It's not like the men of this country are signing up to fight. The last ten years have proven that. May as well let the women do it.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:14 pm | Reply
  75. pete

    most of the people that agree with this have never served and doesnt know what u need to be in combat. those of us who have been in it know that women would put lives at risk and weaken the military

    January 23, 2013 at 8:11 pm | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      And yet many people who have been in combat feel otherwise. Do you have anything to offer besides a general opinion?

      January 23, 2013 at 8:13 pm | Reply
  76. Techno

    Exoskeletons will likely be an equalizer in terms of physical requirements.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:11 pm | Reply
  77. Hugh Mann

    Republicans simply want to do "The Deciding" for Women, no matter what issue is.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:10 pm | Reply
  78. john

    lets see women do 72 push ups, 78 sit ups,5 mile run under 40 minutes, and 7 pull ups. if she can do that then let them go out for combat units. stop giving women weaker standards

    January 23, 2013 at 8:09 pm | Reply
    • Todd

      Do you really think women who max the male PRT standards don't exist? I can't tell you're not in the military.

      I think people are afraid some 5'0 100 pound princess is suddenly going to decide to go infantry, but that won't happen. Women like that will stay exactly where they are (behind desks) because that's where they want to be. The females who choose to go infantry are going to be the hardA ones.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Reply
    • joe

      after 10 days in the field without showers, they will all be yeast infection casulties.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Reply
    • Tom

      John – I wonder if you can do those tasks.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Reply
  79. OldManChawin

    The Israelis have women in combat roles, and the IDF kicks azz (so to speak). Of course women can fight, and why not? The burdens of citizenship should fall equally on all citizens.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:07 pm | Reply
  80. BigGuyWithABigBazooka

    women should no be in combat.It's too dirty and hard for them.

    It should also be mandatory that a women soldier,while on tour should NOT get pregnant.This is WAR,we don't need to have to take of your changing body.The second you get pregant,you get discharged and must stay on leave intill the baby comes out and the soldier feels ready after re-tests.

    Because now I don't want a whole crop of women crying that the military isnt helping their new pregant bodies etc...

    January 23, 2013 at 8:05 pm | Reply
    • Sammy Z

      You obviously know nothing because it currently IS against the rules for a woman to get pregnant while deployed.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Reply
  81. Equal Opportunity

    Those that oppose Equal Opportunity must be

    living elsewhere in the world besides the United

    States. We strive for the pursuit of happiness

    and that includes Equal Opportunity in every

    field, no matter the differences physically,

    mentally, etc. If you do live in the United

    States and oppose equal rights for everyone,

    then I do hope you plan to move elsewhere,

    because the United States is of being Equal in

    all ways possible.

    I do agree that women should be included in the

    draft and the height/weight charts be

    normalized. I agree we should have a standard,

    that all inspiring to be an infantry combatant,

    should ahere to.

    I would assume both men and women would go

    through rigorous training to show that they are

    ready and capable of the expected requirements

    for infantry combat. If this is not the case, it

    is not women that should be banned, but rather

    the regulations to be updated.

    For those that have the viewpoint of women being

    empathetic, loud mouths, etc and the viewpoint

    of men of being chivalrous, e.g. "man sees women

    in danger, man runs to save woman's life," keep

    in mind, that we are human, both men and women

    alike, we have many differences and

    simililarities that are present in each of us.

    Do not assume that we all fall into the same

    stereotypes respective of each gender and should

    not be used as a means to justify not including

    women in combat roles.

    "A person can grow only as much as [their]

    horizon allows." Modified quote of John Powell

    to be politically correct and gender nuetral =)

    January 23, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Reply
  82. inspiration

    Women should not be allowed in combat. Period!

    January 23, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      Your opinion exists.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Reply
  83. Ymmda

    As a combat vet I will tell you this will be a disaster. Discipline break down will be frequent and often. Moreover, the physical fitness standards will be reduced for women, they will have to be, that I state from experience. So what have women won in the cry of "equality" if standards are lowered for them and them only?

    What a joke.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:03 pm | Reply
    • Semper RI

      This couldn't be anymore true.. Woman already get injured in training more than men. Also, having woman around a bunch of men in a war zone, there heads might not be where they are supposed to. This so rediculous wait till the first one dies in combat, it will be the secretary's fault. Politicians will never understand because they are just that. So do they sign up for the draft? Can't wait to see this fly in a grunt unit. Morons

      January 23, 2013 at 8:17 pm | Reply
  84. soaps

    This is just about the stupidest decision ever made. It defies not only logic, but the God-given nature of women. Just another way this society is trying to rip apart the natural order of family, men and women. Women were made by God to be women, not aggressive men in combat. Not saying that women don't have the right to self-defense, but to make this a policy for them to be aggressors in battle is just stupid and irresponsible and against the laws of nature. They should only be put into that role by necessity, not as standard policy. Are these women volunteering themselves prepared for all the horrors the enemy will put them through? Probably not. Yes, agree with other poster that this is just one more way to reduce human population, and eat away at the family. Signed, A Woman

    January 23, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Reply
    • tethys

      We took a vote. We don't want you speaking for us. Signed. All other women.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Reply
      • mamanas

        We have to find a way to weed out these woman. God's Nature??

        January 23, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
      • soaps

        Then go on the front lines, sweetheart! Be our guest. Actually, I'm sure most women would agree with me.

        January 23, 2013 at 8:16 pm |
  85. nc1965

    Men. Your odds of surviving the military and returning home to your families have just decreased by 50%

    January 23, 2013 at 8:01 pm | Reply
    • mamanas

      Sounds good to me, weed the male population woulde good.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Reply
  86. frankiesweep

    Send in a battalion of chicks... See how they do in the middle east.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:00 pm | Reply
  87. john

    hey if a female wants to sleep out in the woods for two weeks straight with no showers, no sleep, little food, then let them go to ranger school. love to see them fall over when they have to carry a 80 pound ruck sack on their back for two months

    January 23, 2013 at 8:00 pm | Reply
    • Kathy

      They did, and they flunked.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:09 pm | Reply
  88. Agapatos

    Once again, the deified democratic principle of "Absolute-Equality-for-everyone-everywhere" shows itself to densely mindless.

    January 23, 2013 at 8:00 pm | Reply
  89. borat

    And then they cry how they get raped by male soldiers etc

    January 23, 2013 at 7:59 pm | Reply
    • aceptle

      What other professions would you like to exclude women from by raping them? Teaching? Doctors? Cashiers?

      January 23, 2013 at 8:01 pm | Reply
  90. ljspin

    While this decision may be controversial, women serving in combat, although not common, has been part of American history since the Revolution. Deborah Sampson dressed as a man and enlisted in the Continental Army under her dead brother's name, Robert Shurtlif Sampson. She served a year and a half, was wounded in battle and dug the musket ball out of her leg herself with a pen knife. She was discovered when she came down with a fever, however, no word was said against her. She was honorably discharaged at the end of the war and received a soldier's pension. Mary Ludwig Hays followed her artillary husband to war as a "Molly Pitcher," a woman who brought water to artillary crews to cool down the hot cannon barrels so they wouldn't burst. When her husband fell due to the heat, Mary manned the cannon until the end of the battle. General George Washington made her a sergeant, and she, too, received a pension after the war. Another Molly Pitcher, Margaret Corbin, ran water to the artillary in the Battle of Fort Washington in New York. When her husband was killed, she took his place at the cannon until British grape tore into her left arm, chest, and jaw. She was captured by the British, paroled as a wounded soldier, and became the first American woman to receive a pension for invalided soldiers.
    In the Civil War, historians estimated that between 400 and 800 women dressed as men and served in both the Union and Confederate armies, and although not officially allowed to enlist, many of these women received soldiers' pensions after the war. There were also women like Bridget Divers who followed her husband to war with the First Michigan Calvary. She not only nursed wounded soldiers, she also helped bring them off the field, and even traveled behind the lines to recover the bodies of slain officers. It is also said that, on occasion, when a soldier fell, she picked up his rifle and took his place in line. After the Civil War, she stayed with the army and it is believed she died out West during the Indian Wars. Mary "French Mary" Tepe and Anna "Gentle Annie" Etheridge both enlisted as Daughters of the Regiment - Yes, the United States Army did enlist women to such a position. While their official duties required them to cook, do laundry, and nurse, both women went out on the field during battle to remove the wounded. Mary Tee was wounded in the foot during battle, and Annie Etheridge was wounded in the hand. Both women received the Kearney Cross (named for General Philip Kearney) for valor under fire. They were accepted as heroines by Victorian-America.
    Do I want, as a high school teacher, to see my female students go off to war? No. But if they want the opportunity to serve their country, then I cannot object.
    To counter your arguments - open some books. The men who served alongside these women respected them. They held their own in battle and there are, at least to my knowledge, NO accounts of battles being lost to women.
    If women could fight in our Revlutionary and

    January 23, 2013 at 7:59 pm | Reply
    • heh

      well said...

      January 23, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Reply
      • chuck wagon

        The brief historical references have enlightened all that have read it and informed us of events and actions taken up by women, however, it does not and will not change my mind of the negative and bigger picture issues associated with this decision. Let me give an example of my take on equality: I have a right to wear a dress and heals and carry a pocket book yet it's not something I desire or want to do.

        January 23, 2013 at 8:21 pm |
      • Lee

        Chuck women can and do fight just as good as men the Israelis have had women fighting for decades, women fought both for the USSE and the resistance movement in WW2.

        January 23, 2013 at 8:27 pm |
  91. nc1965

    If you have a wife, girlfriend or sister in the military, have them get out. Especially if it's a chance of them being in combat.

    Actually, I think this is what the new order is trying to do. Decrease the number of women in the military.

    Well, either way, their numbers will decrease in battle or discharge.

    Clever move.

    January 23, 2013 at 7:58 pm | Reply
  92. Mike

    This is a bad idea! If the Taliban captures a male American service member they cut off there head. Lets all imagine what would be done to service women in similar situations If your mind has not come up with rape and other assorted scenarios you are both a good person and not thinking realistically. Wake up america! Not every country respect women like we do!

    January 23, 2013 at 7:57 pm | Reply
    • Semper Cogitatus

      Yes, a captured would would almost certainly be raped as part of the torture inflicted on her. No, we don't want that to happen any more than we want a captured man to be tortured and executed. Like any job, as long as they are going in knowing and accepting the dangers they should be allowed to.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:03 pm | Reply
    • mamanas

      Respect women??? What are the rates of violence against women in the US? If a woman wants to serve in a combat role she accepts all that come with it. The objections seem to be from men who pretend to put value on females.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:05 pm | Reply
    • ChrisM106

      Got news for you. Taliban do rape their male prisoners as well.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Reply
      • GeorgeW

        And the male prisoners don't get pregnant. The transport units in Iraq had really bad rape problems for all the female POW. Never hear how many were impregnated and how far along they were when released. WHY on God's green earth would the citizens of this country put our women in that position. That's their right, huh ? Not in my book. I'd never want my daughter or granddaughter willingly put into that position as part of her job. My grandfather was a POW and had it bad. Can't we have mothers raising children at home and not returning from war with that scenario.

        January 24, 2013 at 2:26 am |
  93. Alex H

    I love the negative reactions all over this comment board. The funny thing is you know the people who are complaining are the same ones who say bullh*t like "Well if feminists really want equality then let them fight on the font lines!". But now the government simply allowing them to apply for these positions is driving them mad! Sorry you won't be able to use your BS line anymore to justify your male chauvinism any more. Hypocrites.

    January 23, 2013 at 7:56 pm | Reply
    • heh

      yeah it has really brought the cavemen out hasnt it?

      January 23, 2013 at 7:58 pm | Reply
  94. john

    if women can do the same standards as men then they can try out for it. but the real soldiers that have served know that women get special treatment, lower standards, and are always in sick call complaining about something. in combat there are no timeout and women simply cant hang.

    January 23, 2013 at 7:56 pm | Reply
  95. firewalker

    Let the R A P I N G began ...........it will bring a whole new meaning to parting with the FEMALE P.O.W.

    January 23, 2013 at 7:54 pm | Reply
    • tethys

      Why is it only men care about rape? It's so weird.

      January 23, 2013 at 7:55 pm | Reply
      • beancounter

        Because most of them are pervs, no matter where they come from. Women in military are raped by fellow soldiers and nothing is done about it. Men bring out "rape" similar to bringing out the race card. Any time women try to break out of men's perceived control, the rape word is thrown around as if all women will be terrified. As if the taliban couldn't whack off the men's jewels before execution. Yes, all you men grab your crotches in horror now. See how that works? Bobbitt, Bobbitt, Bobbitt. LOL

        January 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm |
  96. Capster7899

    Great! So when will we start requiring women to register for the draft! And when will we also demand that half of the forces on the ground are women. Women have forcefully pushed their way into the workforce and demanded a 50% stake in it. Lawmakers have, in many career fields, passed laws to ensure a "fair" percentage of the workforce is female. So lets start mandating that women die on our battlefields at the same rate as men. Come on women!! You can do it!! Pick up that gun, pick up that 70+ pound pack!! LETS GO! LETS BE EQUALS in love and in death!

    January 23, 2013 at 7:52 pm | Reply
    • marianna68

      I've been serving in the Army for quite some time. If women want to serve in the combat arms let them. Just be thankful the draft card hasn't been used or you'd really hear some whining from some of the negative posters here.

      January 23, 2013 at 7:58 pm | Reply
    • capiers

      Wow.. you are so out of line I just don't know where to begin.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:11 pm | Reply
    • beancounter

      You are an idiot. Women have been forced to join the work force because so many wothless s.o.b. Husbands dump their wives and act like they never helped create their kids. I got the good job I have because after searching for months I was the ONLY person the company found that had the education and credentials to do it. No one handed me the job. They were darn glad to find me to fill their niche.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Reply
    • beancounter

      Women outlive men on average, because we are stronger. When men can birth a 9 or 10 pound baby, while having NO pain meds, we can talk about who is tough. I am all for equality whenever you men are up to it. Let me know when you can handle bleeding like crazy for one week of each month and pop out a kid every few years.

      January 23, 2013 at 8:42 pm | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

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.