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 (3,531 Responses)
  1. Joey

    I whole-heartedly support this. Maybe when our daughters body parts are lined up in coffins at the airport we will start to question the reasons we went to war. Clearly we aren't asking the right questions when it's just our sons that are dying.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:49 am | Reply
  2. ColdWarVet75

    You must have the body strength to carry a lot of gear, which nearly all women don't have. Fighting an insurgency is different than fighting a land army. If a Chinese, Russian or North Korean soldier jumps into a females fighting hole he won't care if she is a woman before he plunges his bayonet into her belly. Other than the Soviet Union during WWII women did not serve in combat. Even Israel doesn't use them. Armies that allow them in infantry units haven't been in a war in a very long time like Switzerland and Sweden.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:48 am | Reply
  3. bo lies

    I'm surprised the women's rights KLANS haven't fought for women being part of the draft.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:47 am | Reply
  4. 912guy

    Here we go...it isnt about the aftermath of getting caught .....it is about knowing your enemy,knowing there reasoning,knowing how to leverage your best diplomacy,and understanding what they respect,dislike,and deem honorable.If you were a military leader over a great nation,and you were at odds with a enemy,and that very enemy hated women, looked at them as cattle,thought they were nothing but baby makers,and could never advise man,would YOU send a female to negotiate on your behalf?If you would then you must be slow.War is about smarts,.planning,common sense tactics,no equal right policy.Because bad policy and silliness will get you and your country killed.As for guy on guy rape, this isnt Sing-Sing prison....It is very easy for a guy by himself to rape a female...dont need a click,or crew.Now tell me how many raped men have you EVER heard of in the military that were raped by ONE man ?Yes, tell me what male soldier who has been raped by another male...I can bet you cant...But I bet you can find several females that will say I was raped by one guy...The entire point is that women are easier prey than men,that can be seen here in the states and to try and argue as if this is not a fact is useless because we are emotionally defensive with policy.Next we will be saying that a snale is faster than a cheetah....l

    January 24, 2013 at 8:46 am | Reply
  5. Libdumb

    Fantastic. Boy there are many women in the their cozy groups like NOW. Can't wait for them to see the real war on women. Wait until we need a draft and the Hollywood set have to go into basic training to kill their enemy. No salons in the foxholes. Welcome to the real world of equality.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:45 am | Reply
    • Christos

      OK. So now it is time to register at 18 for men and women. It could be draft time. Has anyone been watching Korea? Wow... where is carrie Underwood, Nicki Minage, Taylor Swift and other 18 – 24 young ladies on this. Are they for hand to hand combat? Sorry, USO they are going to fight next to me. Can't have it both ways.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:55 am | Reply
  6. blablabla

    I was in one of the first integrated boot camps in 98. I remember that when we hit a hill ruckmarching, one or two males would get behind a female and push them up. But that was basic. Later, in the 82nd, we had females in our unit, and some of em were studs, didn't mind carrying a saw. But they were the kind of females that would volunteer for an airborne unit, so like the males in the unit, they were a different breed. I think if you even out the PT standards and only let the females who can hack it (not bring the standards down to accomodate) into combat roles, this will really be a great thing. Yeah, they're rare, but there are some females who can outrun, outpush, and outruck 80% of the guys out there. They want a piece, let em come get it.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:40 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      Amazing, a lucid and clear post. Why are you on here?

      January 24, 2013 at 8:45 am | Reply
  7. Tony

    There are SEVERAL problems with women in combat that the military has studied: 1) Feminine Hygiene–most women use their OB-GYN as their "primary care" physician, because their "plumbing down there" needs so much attention. 2) When you're talking about anatomy, the bottom line is that 1) an M1 Abrams tank is built like a submarine–*optimized* for space. Tampons, pads, etc. take up valuable space. 2) MORE IMPORTANTLY, if a woman winds up with a "problem" down below, then you've LOST a combat soldier–a weakness to the WHOLE unit, whether "boots on the ground" or in a tank. Plus, there is all the "dirty laundry" which *quickly* becomes toxic (because its dead blood) that has to be either STORED in a tank or somehow disposed of in a "sanitary way"–which means MORE "dirty laundry" whether in a tank or on the ground.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:40 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      I did not read past your first completely ignorant line...... What a crock of cr@p.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:43 am | Reply
      • Tony

        Oh, SHOVE IT. Statistical proof is statistical proof. And, you have NO answer to THAT.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:45 am |
    • tcp

      I would LOVE to see you post a link to these "studies"...

      January 24, 2013 at 8:50 am | Reply
      • Tony

        simply do an "ixq

        January 24, 2013 at 8:55 am |
      • Tony

        Simply do an "ixquick" search or Google search–what do you live under a ROCK or what?

        January 24, 2013 at 8:57 am |
    • p

      This is a ridiculous statement. There are ways for women to prevent menstruation during deployments and many do it. I, myself, did it when deployed to Afghanistan. It does not affect our health or ability to have children when we choose to.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:54 am | Reply
      • ashley

        thank you for your service, and thank you for standing up for this progressive change. By doubling the candidates for any role, we improve the strength of our forces.

        January 24, 2013 at 9:16 am |
    • Ellen

      You have no idea what you are talking about, but since you are convinced let me explained. 1) Feminine Hygiene–most women use their OB-GYN as their "primary care" physician, because their "plumbing down there" needs so much attention. – BS! I see only see my primary doctor for everything, I never have had "so many issues down there" give me a break. 2) an M1 Abrams tank is built like a submarine–*optimized* for space. Tampons, pads, etc. take up valuable space. Again BS- Most trael tampons are the size of lighters- second I am on the DEPO shot( I am lucky to get a period once a year) 2) MORE IMPORTANTLY, if a woman winds up with a "problem" down below, then you've LOST a combat soldier–a weakness to the WHOLE unit, whether "boots on the ground" or in a tank. Plus, there is all the "dirty laundry" which *quickly* becomes toxic (because its dead blood) that has to be either STORED in a tank or somehow disposed of in a "sanitary way"–which means MORE "dirty laundry" whether in a tank or on the ground- This is just plain stupid. If I am having no periods, no waste. If I am fit and in great health, not a issue with "problems down there".
      So unless you have actually real reason outside of these....

      January 24, 2013 at 9:01 am | Reply
      • Ellie

        He doesn't. Obviously, he has nothing better to do then attacking women. No need to waste your time argue with him, this type of people will not be around in the future.

        January 24, 2013 at 9:32 am |
    • Puck

      You're fascination with a woman's menstrual cycle is down right disturbing. As is the fact that your refer to it as "down there", you didn't do to well in health class or biology did you. Now I was wondering what about when guys have a "down there" problem, like an std from sticking it in places that they shouldn't. do crabs in a tank increase or decrease moral? And statistical fact is not statistical fact, it's relevancy is based off of the source from which it was obtained. Now please continue your idiocracy, it's rather amusing.

      January 24, 2013 at 9:03 am | Reply
    • Ted

      Your ignorance is overwhelming

      January 24, 2013 at 9:09 am | Reply
  8. Todd

    Wait till there's a real war like ww2 Vietnam where thousands of troops get killed every day
    I was In Iraq from 05 to 06 I am an infantry veterin from the 327th out of 101st airborne
    I mean yea in oef and oif thay could do the job there it's more of a police effort
    But if we ever fight someone with a real army like china or russa thay have the same capability as us
    The death toll would be a lot higher thin what we've seen from oef and oif there for a lot more mothers would get killed
    Imagine 25000 troops get killed one day storming a beach in china half of that number was women
    That 12500 dead women dead moms dead wife's
    Women are more important then men they are needed to repopulate after a large number of people are wiped out

    January 24, 2013 at 8:37 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      So women are simply incubators? Sorry, I have a lot more respect for women than that. Also, the number of women lost to your hypothetical war would not significantly impact our ability to procreate.
      Also, that assumes that we draft women into combat roles. Not likely. As that is not an internal military decision but a societal decision. Totally unrelated to this current discussion.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:42 am | Reply
  9. Christos

    I think what they need to do is have divisions based on the womens cycle, i.e, all members of the are on the same cycle. So you would have Midol 1, Midol 2 ect. Then send them into combat 3 days before their period. Trust me, they are going to be angrier than any man on the field of combat and wanting revenge on xy's.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:34 am | Reply
    • Jeff

      LMAO!!!! That's too much!!! ;-}

      January 24, 2013 at 8:37 am | Reply
    • JayneQP

      My training since the time I was 13 in pain, stress, anxiety, extreme discomfort, and MESS makes me better qualified than you sissy boy. If you think a period is a hindrance, YOU shouldn't be allowed to fight. Ninny.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:41 am | Reply
    • JOHN

      ...so true...they will be crying and screaming at the same time.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:56 am | Reply
  10. Tyler

    I'll bet the Taliban and al Qaeda can't wait to get a hold of these new combat soldiers...

    January 24, 2013 at 8:31 am | Reply
    • p

      Having been to Afghanistan I can tell you that men have a lot more to worry about than women when it comes to rape. The Afghan men find women dirty and only useful for child bearing. Many of the men, especially in positions of power, have young boys. My fear was never being raped, but being sold to other insurgents and ending up in Pakistan where there is no hope of rescue. I also feared being raped by my fellow serviceman far more than I ever did of being raped by Afghans.

      January 24, 2013 at 9:04 am | Reply
  11. Jeff

    I for one think this is hysterical....women have been screaming for "Equality" for years...and now they got it...be carefull what you wich for ladies, cause you just might get it!!!

    January 24, 2013 at 8:29 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      Great fifth grade level response there.

      nanny nanny boo boo....

      Luckily most of our soldiers are actually mature.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:37 am | Reply
      • Jeff

        Just reality my friend....my grandfarther on fathers side was Navy off the coast of Korea during the Korean War...Grandfather on Mothers side Army Communcations Specialist/Infintry WWII Battle of the Bulge...Father Army M.P./ Infintry Vietnam...one Female Cousin erned her wings in the Air Force and another is in the National Guard!!! ......Because of all the HORROR StoriesI herad from my dlders and my political beliefs I choose a different route because my family has more than fought for the freedoms of this country!! If women want equality and to see combat, all power to them...but the psycological aftermath is not gonna be pretty!!

        January 24, 2013 at 8:45 am |
      • JayneQP

        Jeff, it's not pretty now. I have a brother (giant of a man, tough as nails, always), suffering from terrible PTSD... and he's not alone, is he.... PTSD isn't gender-specific.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:59 am |
    • JayneQP

      *curtsy*

      January 24, 2013 at 8:39 am | Reply
      • Jeff

        Thanks Jayne I appriciate that...in no way was I trashing the integrity of women by any of my comments or responses....I was just finding the humor in life on a dark and uneasy topic...so once agian, thank you!!! Plus if I did trash women, my mother would kick my ass!! ;-}

        January 24, 2013 at 8:57 am |
      • JayneQP

        Right? Women...mothers... have a different kind of toughness that people tend to forget. Ask most people who their most fierce protector was as they grew up... Mom. I would and COULD do anything to protect my family... these women are the "mothers" of our country and what better way to protect us than to let them be the mother-bear she is.

        January 24, 2013 at 9:02 am |
  12. fiftyfive55

    I'm glad it won't be on my conscience when these women get captrured and BRUTALLY RAPED by the enemy,I'll know I am not responsible for this farce.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:27 am | Reply
    • Chake

      Isn't all rape brutal? Do you think men don't get raped?

      January 24, 2013 at 8:29 am | Reply
      • fiftyfive55

        well,I see you dont see a difference between men and women even though it's obvious

        January 24, 2013 at 8:47 am |
    • MarkinFL

      You seem awfully excited by the prospect.... consider therapy.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:38 am | Reply
      • fiftyfive55

        Not me but if I was the enemy , I'd be thankin you for the women.Man some of you guys are just so ignorant about lifes little differences and realities.Tell us what you really think is going to happen to captured women ? they gonna get flowers ?

        January 24, 2013 at 8:49 am |
    • tcp

      Is being "brutally raped" any worse than being "brutally beheaded" or "brutally burned" or "brutally dragged through the streets"?...Such a non-argument.

      January 24, 2013 at 9:00 am | Reply
      • fiftyfive55

        Pretty lame and naive response,too bad you dont understand differences between men and women

        January 24, 2013 at 9:22 am |
  13. Esog

    Before you know it, they will start the draft again. It takes a lot to keep an empire going.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:26 am | Reply
  14. CHhrisINF

    I am a US Army Master Sergeant in the Infantry with over 21 years of service and still on active duty. I would like to give my opinion on this subject but the people who are making this decision don't want to hear what I have to say. I'm sorry, I just think that there is something wrong with this.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:26 am | Reply
    • Tyler

      Don't feel bad Chris, all normal people know there's A LOT wrong with this.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:34 am | Reply
    • Pure nervy

      I agree. My concern is how many women have bad cramps, where will they have access to change pads and OMG what about PMS. These are very good things to consider. Some women can't even function day to day life during that time of month. What is Obamy and panetta thinking? Dumb, real dumb.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:35 am | Reply
    • Marine Pogue

      You're spot on MSgt. I'm a Marine SSgt, admin type and I think its ridiculous. But no one ask our opinion. I highly doubt it will last long. Women already serve in FETs, serve in motor t billets with the constant fear of ambush. Its a political game for these people.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:35 am | Reply
  15. Christos

    Collatoral damage as a result of an offensive does include women and children. Are women ready to make that decision as per orders. Not that men are going to make that decision any quicker, but the remnants of that decision may be felt longer for women and their instincts to nurture.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:25 am | Reply
    • fiftyfive55

      Any woman going into combat is definitely NOT a nurturer,let alone a mother.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:34 am | Reply
      • tcp

        I've served with nurturing mothers in combat. You REALLY underestimate them!

        January 24, 2013 at 9:02 am |
  16. Julie

    My husband was in the Marine corp. We both agree as long as they can meet the physcial requirements they should be allowed. However, many of todays soldiers can carry 90 lbs. into combat. That along with the elements such as heat and cold and many many miles of carring that kind of load would be to much for most females based solely on their physical anatomy.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:22 am | Reply
    • jhysterio

      Why would heat and cold make any difference? Men and women have existed together in various climates since forever.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:26 am | Reply
      • Tyler

        I guess that 80 lb ruck won't make any difference either, huh?

        January 24, 2013 at 8:36 am |
  17. jhysterio

    I guess the phrase "I need every swingin' dick out there" no longer applies.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:22 am | Reply
    • jhysterio

      As well as "Drop your c*cks and grab your socks".

      January 24, 2013 at 8:24 am | Reply
  18. gadzod

    I find it interesting that all of this happened the same day Hilliary Clinton was to testify about Benghazi......

    January 24, 2013 at 8:22 am | Reply
    • Mark Packer

      Wow...you nailed it! I bet you think you're clever.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:37 am | Reply
  19. Army Vet

    Ok, the first thing that needs to happen is that the Service's physical fitness tests become "gender neutral" and that the toughest standards ( mostly the male standards) become the benchmarks......like the old saying goes..."Be careful what you ask for...you just may get it."

    January 24, 2013 at 8:22 am | Reply
    • TommmyG

      I honestly think that's what Panetta hoped would happen. Trim the fat. Nothing wrong with that at all.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:26 am | Reply
    • Chake

      Some of us already trained according to the male fitness standard-it was easy too.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:32 am | Reply
  20. tcp

    SGT Leigh Ann Hester, SPC Monica Lin Brown...

    January 24, 2013 at 8:22 am | Reply
    • WhatsYourOpinion

      I have read the DoD is opening up Ranger School to female officers as a test pilot to see how females will do. What do you think? Also, men in Ranger School lose a lot of weight and essential body fat. Essential body fat is necessary to maintain life and reproductive functions. The percentage of essential fat is 3–5% in men, and 10-16% in women.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:51 am | Reply
      • tcp

        I think as long as NO standard is compromised there is no harm in this. The OSS had MANY female operatives. Tier one units have females. The Israeli Army is pretty integrated....

        January 24, 2013 at 9:07 am |
  21. stevenbeto

    In the Vietnam war, the enemy used female combatants and they were capable and brave. I have no doubt that American women are up to the task, but this will challenge deeply rooted values and myths. This decision will have societal resonance as portentious as the development of the pill and Roe vs. Wade.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:21 am | Reply
    • Tyler

      What percentage of female soldiers and Marines do you suppose would be capable of meeting the men's physical fitness requirements in boot camp or in the field?

      January 24, 2013 at 8:25 am | Reply
      • Chris in Seoul

        I would say maybe 20-25%. I have known many women soldiers so could outdo their male counterparts in virtually every aspect of the PT test (2 mile run, situps and yes, even the pushups), shoot just as well and ruck just as much as guys. Many of the guys would get shown up by the females in my unit and they wouldn't be happy.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:35 am |
      • Souljacker

        Well, probably the same percentage as men. A lot of people are missing the fact that not all guys make it into the special units either. It's not like somehow having your reproductive organs external to your body automatically means you are going to be a top soldier. We have lots of soldiers who just can't hack that training.

        We also really need to get off the topic of r@pe. Women have been suffering it at the hands of men since humankind came into existence. We have suffered it at the hands of strangers, we have suffered it at the hands of family members we are supposed to be able to trust, and we have suffered it at the hands of partners we have chosen and love. Why in the world does ANYONE think that a woman who can make it through special ops training would suddenly turn into jelly just because of the possible danger of r@pe? Nevermind the fact that our service women are ALREADY being hurt by OUR OWN TROOPS, men who are supposed to have their backs and they are supposed to be able to trust.

        I'm sorry if this makes you feel insecure about your manhood, but it's about time our military stepped up to the plate and acknowledged the contribution women have and can continue to make to humankind. It's not like we didn't come out of the caves with you guys. You wouldn't be here without us.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:54 am |
      • Marine Pogue

        The physical fitness test or the physical fitness requirements in the field? They are different. All Marines and soliders are capable of being in the field. I'd say less than 5%, however, can max the male PFT for the USMC. I was 18 when I maxed it, haven't maxed it since. Then again, my cup of tea was always weight training, not much of a runner.

        January 24, 2013 at 9:02 am |
  22. Marine Pogue

    I lead female Marines everyday. I'm married to a female Marine. I'm here to say two things: 1) There is no front lines anymore and all people (military, civilians, contractors) in a combat zone are equally at risk of "seeing" combat and 2) the women I know have no desire to be a 0311. Call this what it is, a politically fueled ploy by feminist groups filled with people that have never served but see the military as a venue to push their agenda.

    Heres the bottom line. If a woman can maintain the same standards as those required by men, have at it. What will inevitably happen is 1) the juice wont be worth the squeeze because its unlikely many women will rush to become an 03 and 2) women will experience slower promotion because being an 03 is extremely physical. Artillery men, for example, lift 100lbs rockets for hours straight. Even the best fit woman would have to work exponentially harder to get her body to continue to perform at a level most young boys can do naturally. Her leadership will see she is weaker and rank her lower on fitness reports thus stalling her promotion. Now you have an entirely different "equality" issue at hand.

    There's nothing glorious or equal about being a grunt. its a thankless job that most grunts don't even like doing. Women in the military, like my wife, learned very valuable skills that have provided endless opportunities once she hung up her uniform.

    IF ANYTHING I SAID IN THIS POST IS FOREIGN TO YOU (I.E. 03, FITNESS REPORT, ETC) YOU DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT AND HONESTLY DO NOT RATE AN OPINION ON SOMETHING THAT MEANS THE DIFFERENCE OF LIFE OR DEATH. SERVE, THEN SPEAK. UNTIL FOCUS ON GUN CONTROL OR SOME OTHER LIBERAL ISSUE.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:20 am | Reply
    • Glo G

      "IF ANYTHING I SAID IN THIS POST IS FOREIGN TO YOU (I.E. 03, FITNESS REPORT, ETC) YOU DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT AND HONESTLY DO NOT RATE AN OPINION"

      Wow. Arrogant s–t, aren't you? Excuse the hell out of we plebes who haven't your glorious backround and intelligence. Now, I think I'll go write a blog about knitting and the benefits of baking well for one's man.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:25 am | Reply
      • Marine Pogue

        Not arrogant at all. We, the people that serve, leave our families for a year at a time, watch our friends die, etc, do not view our military as a science project for liberals to practice their social experiments on. I'm sorry if I think that people who have no idea what we do or the difficulties of doing it should not have an opinion on it. Just support the military and trust that our leadership makes decisions based on decades of experience. They have witnessed the horrors of war, they have made calculated decisions that women should not serve as a point man in a fire team for a reason. A patrolman's pack weighs nearly 80lbs. My wife when she served weighed 105 lbs. She was incredibly fit, but even a simple understanding of biology tells you she would not be able to keep up with, or if necessary save, her 180lbs team mate. There is bigger issues than equality here. What the general public perceives as making things equal will only make things less equal as women will fall behind in promotion and there will be a disparity in rank distribution. What then? The activist groups will scream for change yet again. Just leave it alone, it works the way it is. Sorry if I offended you, and I mean that. I'm just passionate about my organization and how it is composed.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:31 am |
      • JayneQP

        LOL!

        January 24, 2013 at 8:35 am |
    • JayneQP

      Time will tell, won't it. It's a foolish thing to speak in absolutes before all the facts are in.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:26 am | Reply
      • Marine Pogue

        You're right Jayne, perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. Who knows, perhaps it will work out fine. From what I see at military schools I've attended, where all MOSs come together to train, most women can't hang with even the average infantry man in even basic PT. Keyword, "most". There are a selective few out there, but they are far so few that the juice isn't worth the squeeze to reorganize the entire military for less than 1% of its members.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:39 am |
      • Alyssa

        This is hardly a reorganization of the entire military. They're evaluating standards and changing policies. 90% of the military will remain unchanged or unaffected.

        January 24, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • Tyler

      It's also being drive by female career military officers who want to make General but know they can't without commanding a combat unit. The people who will be forced to hump it in Indian country want noting to do with this nonsense.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:27 am | Reply
    • TommmyG

      @Glo & @Jayne, STFU. @Marine Pogue thanks for your service. I do politely disagree that we don't have a dog in the fight. They're our sons, brothers, dads, neighbors, and we care about anything that may jeopardize them. With that said, the feminazis jumping in to troll an argument about their superiority, STFU.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:29 am | Reply
      • JayneQP

        awww.. foul mouth trumps a brain every time. you win! YAAY!

        January 24, 2013 at 8:36 am |
    • tcp

      Those things that you said in your post would be "foreign" to anyone who isn't a Marine, Marine! Stop being so myopic and get back on the FOB where you belong. Tell me if a 105 lb MALE Marine would be able to hump kit as an 03...yeah, that's what I thought. Just 'cuz your wife was a Marine doesn't give you some special knowledge of the issue it just gives you LIMITED knowledge from YOUR perspective.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:39 am | Reply
      • Marine Pogue

        Fair enough tcp. Back to the FOB where I belong, as you wish.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:42 am |
      • Marine Pogue

        Actually, I read some of your responses. You're legit, but I'd like to hear your take. I'm not some FOBit. I've worked with psyops on propaganda for ANA recruitment in Afghanistan and spent weeks in Marjeh overseeing check point construction. Anyway, my main concern is not the front lines issue, because as you know they don't exist. The concern is the promotion potential it will create for females that take extreme measures to do what men can do naturally. You can't deny that outcome is very probable. With so much of being in combat arms being physical, what happens to the extremely fit, but still "normal" by military standards? My limited perspective as you so eloquently put it, has never had a female be a top physical performer in any battalion I've ever been in. I've seen 300 PFTers, but they were 300 PFTers using the female standards. Never seen a female running less than 18 minutes. I mean how do you fairly assess females in MOSs where everything falls back on the physical component?

        January 24, 2013 at 8:54 am |
    • suzyqpie

      I did not serve. Thank you for serving. I will argue to my last dying breath intellectual equality. I will concede the physical superiority of the male physique. I suggest the real goal with this decision is the lowering of all military physical tests. The goal is to reduce our Militray from fierce warriors, which the Left hates, to moderate sensitive thoughtful
      Comrades. The Pentagon will now hire hundreds of bureaucrats to start rewriting all of the standard tests, ROE, and everything that has created the historic pride that we have had in our Military. We are now getting down to the most fundamental transformation.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:51 am | Reply
      • Marine Pogue

        We have the smartest military in history. I've been on convoys with 19 year old Corporals as the convoy leader and they were able to completely put together 5 paragraph orders, taking into account all possible areas of friction. When things got sticky they went from really smart to really smart and ferocious. Lowering the standards wont happen for two reasons: 1) anytime we downsize the military, standards get tougher not more laxed and 2) Marines will never lower their standards so long as there is 10% of the population that can blow the "standards" out of the water. If females want in, they would have to conform to those standards or find another way to spend their 4 years...simple as that.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:58 am |
      • Souljacker

        Why would you think that? They are rolling the changes out slowly to see what areas are a goot fit for femals soldiers and which ones aren't. They aren't just going to start lowering the standards for Green Berets so women can join, but we might start seeing places where it's a god fit to have female tactical units serving with men.

        I don't think that anyone is suggesting that women should do grunt work, but let's face it, there are a heck of a lot of women out there that are intellectually advanced and could offer a lot more if they were part of strategic tactical units on the front lines. I know it's a big change and change is scary, especially if your reproductive organs are outside your body. But it will be ok, I promise. We want to protect you as much as you want to protect us, and we aren't trying to take anything away from you. Some women just aren't cut out to be Susie Homemaker, just as some men aren't cut out to be John Shepard.

        January 24, 2013 at 9:04 am |
    • Alyssa

      As an American citizen I most certianly do rate an opinion on the military that I help pay for. Or are you disqualified from having an opinion about abortion due to your lack of a v@gina?

      January 24, 2013 at 12:13 pm | Reply
  23. patriottony

    Fine,,,so be it, then ALL initial entry recruits of the Female gender must adhere to the same P/T standards as males, same Body fat standards as males, same training requirements as males....and OHHH sign an statement that when you get dropped in far from a support base, you have no showers, no cots, no hot food, no toilets of any kind, no place to buy tampons. But most of all,, no privacy at all,, grunts shuck off all that stuff in combat, because it's just not logistically possible. So she will have to hump the mortar base plate, or extra cans of ammo, and of course if captured, she faces gang rape at the hands of her captors as an infidel sow.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:20 am | Reply
    • Marine Pogue

      Most females don't have a problem with the "luxuries" available at FOBs but not at COPS or PBs. But you are right, the necessities like Tampons is a big deal. When that PX truck doesn't go out for a month or more because the threat level is too high, what will females do about basic feminine hygiene? These liberal groups don't think about these things, they just see a perceived injustice that they can exploit, so they go all in. I was completely on board with doing away with DADT, I felt it was stupid and barbaric. I thought the timing was wrong with us fighting wars on two fronts, but still a worthy cause. This however, is just stupid.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:25 am | Reply
      • armymedvet

        First of all, female soldiers in theater receive a shot so they do not have periods during deployments. If a female desires the job and can adapt to the standards what is the big deal?

        January 24, 2013 at 8:54 am |
    • Marine Pogue

      @armymedvet, the females I've been in Iraq and Afghanistan with received no such shot and the PX had an entire shelf dedicated to feminine hygiene.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:59 am | Reply
  24. Barfo

    Political correctness gone bizarre.How many police officers are wounded each year protecting their female partners? Can you imagine a squad of soldiers in combat with a 50/50 male/female ratio?

    January 24, 2013 at 8:19 am | Reply
    • dclayton4473

      I have to agree. As tough as my wife is I can't imagine her having to go hand to hand with a male in battle. As a wrestler small things like size, weight and strength are the difference...

      January 24, 2013 at 8:22 am | Reply
      • JayneQP

        As a martial artist, I'd say when you play to your strengths, size makes NO difference.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:47 am |
    • tcp

      Are you honestly implying that Police Officers DON'T "protect" their male partners? I sure wouldn't want that guy on my patrol...

      January 24, 2013 at 8:34 am | Reply
  25. gadzod

    Definitely looks like the "Attention to detail" is really working for the female in the picture with her chamber....Ooops

    January 24, 2013 at 8:18 am | Reply
  26. Old Salt

    It will be interesting to see if the PTSD figures increase when this happens. One thing is that this should not be a voluntary thing for women. They should be picked for infantry service exactly like the guys and meet the same physical requirements.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:16 am | Reply
    • AR 611-1

      Men are not picked for infantry service. They can just enlist or become an officer in the infantry corps. Infantry (11 series) is just closed to women and other combat MOS's are closed to women.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:23 am | Reply
  27. Ralph

    It will be a challenge for military leaders in the field. Just the logistics in supporting this, I do not think they really thought this through.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:13 am | Reply
    • Johnny

      They'll fit in the same body-bag. That's pretty much all Uncle Sam cares about.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:17 am | Reply
  28. Johnny

    I see nothing but positives here. The women who enlist should be held to the same standards for the same job, and should understand they'll be taking all the same risks. This should keep out the freeloaders and strengthen the military.

    As for the draft, let's not go there. When you think of your wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter, mom being drafted and hauled off to a foreign land, kind of makes you sick doesn't it? Well it should. This is for enlisted personnel, let's keep it that way.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:11 am | Reply
    • Ralph

      Leave the draft to men. Women can volunteer if they want.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:17 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      Agreed. The draft is not relevant to this discussion. The draft is a societal issue. In the volunteer armed forces, combat jobs are an internal personnel issue.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:34 am | Reply
  29. wb

    The Taliban are probably picking out new drapes for their rape rooms. You don't want to make a bad impression on a first date. War is hell ladies, as some of you are about to find out.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:08 am | Reply
    • ac

      Rape rooms? They are much more likely to get raped by the Neaderthal in their unit.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:15 am | Reply
      • MarkinFL

        This whole rape argument is pathetic. It seems to come from the same people that have no problem with our women soldiers being raped in massive numbers by their fellow U.S. soldiers. I guess THAT is OK. As long as we keep it in the family.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:31 am |
  30. USMC Vet

    I think it's fine. It's about time that females have to deploy and get put in harms way just like the male service members. It wasn't fair when it came to promotions, etc when you have a female who just did their 9-5 while the males where on ships or deployed and living in a shelter half. Now they need to change the physical fitness test to be the same and then hopefully it will weed out the females who are just not cut out to be a war fighter.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:07 am | Reply
    • nik

      Boot Camp weeds out many males, as well.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:11 am | Reply
      • USMC Vet

        nik – you are correct...males get weeded out in Bootcamp. But as many know a female service member, if it's intensional or not, get treated differently than males. I remember on a hump one time with full gear. When a male fell back a little he was thrown into the truck of shame and counseled while the senior enlisted would just grab a females back or rifle, etc and lighten her load and motivate her to get back up with the pack if she fell behind.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:38 am |
      • armymedvet

        @UMC Vet
        I served honorably for 8 years and never had anyone take my ruck or rifle. I rucked at the head of the pack. If a male feels some need to save a female soldier that is their problem. Women are capable of doing the job.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:58 am |
  31. nik

    Historically, males attack women on the basis of menstruation. Indeed,somethings do not change as I see guys still using this
    against them. The Tet offensive in Vietnam saw scores of women driving tanks into the American compounds and blasting everyone in sight. Did the tanks have kotex machines in them?

    January 24, 2013 at 8:05 am | Reply
    • Willie12345

      In your dreams.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:19 am | Reply
  32. Joe

    Come on guys, this is excellent reverse psychology. The military is making it sound like they're opening up "opportunities" while in actuality they're trying to rid the military of the dead-weight female soldiers who enlist to meet men and to collect pay without having to do any of the real work. The ones who stick around will be worth their salt, probably as tough as the brave men they'll be fighting next to.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:01 am | Reply
  33. Kilgore

    In the armor branch, some of the things I would be concerned about would be a woman's ability to load six 50+ lb main gun rounds per minute, help break track, and be able to pull a 200+ lb injured male soldier up and out of the turret by themselves.

    I also remember fellow armor soldiers decorating the inside of their turrets with porn for morale + welfare. I'm sure political correctness will now be in effect, and combat arms soldiers will have to be on their best behavior at all times.

    January 24, 2013 at 8:00 am | Reply
    • tcp

      Most of my Armor brothers couldn't pull a two hundred pound Soldier up and out of the turret. That is ridiculous. Oh, and those pictures you are talking about were banned about 20 years ago.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:12 am | Reply
      • Kilgore

        So you would let a fellow tanker burn inside the turret because you couldn't extricate him?

        As a platoon leader, I allowed porn on the tanks about 10 years ago. I'm sure it's more politically correct now...

        January 24, 2013 at 11:50 pm |
  34. creative36

    Military is moving towards using drones for combat so this is more of a symbolic move. Not because the military trusts women in combat.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:57 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      If you think drones will replace feet on the ground anytime soon then you need a lot more education about the military AND technology.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:23 am | Reply
  35. MDK

    The people making these decisions have less time in combat than Prince Harry. As such when they say there will be no effect on readiness I am a bit skeptical. I did notice the wording of this states "Gender neutral requirements". Does that mean a single PT test scoring scale? It would go a long way towards Soldiers accepting we are all the same if come PT test time said woman that is the same as me had to do the same number of pushups and run as fast as I do (I won't even touch on the height/weight standards). Also, now will women have to register for the draft at age 18 and should they enlist and decide to go Officer one day will 3 of there top 4 branch choices be required to be a Combat Arms branch? The fact is that Iraq and Afghanistan were/are very mature battlefields. As such facilities exist for males and females in even some of the most remote places. Should we ever fight a traditional ground war again where we are on the move and living out of our ruck this will not be the case.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:53 am | Reply
  36. Techno

    Exoskeletons will be used to level the playing field, eventually. The technology is still evolving. Female POWs will still be vulnerable.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:53 am | Reply
  37. LTC Hunter

    Yessirreebillybob, there's nothing I find hotter in a woman than when she's had all four limbs blown off and has been burned over 60 percent of her body. I hope the women who want to see combat get everything they have coming to them. Don't expect any sympathy from me when you're laying in a burn unit dying. You Liberals... you wanted it, now you've got it. Enjoy.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:52 am | Reply
    • tcp

      Remind me to NEVER go to war with you...change your name X-box ranger.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:58 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      You must really hate women. Too much rejection?

      January 24, 2013 at 8:28 am | Reply
  38. gadzod

    So, what happens in 4-5 days when a female hasn't been able to take care of their female parts because of being in a swamp in a combat operation, and they start to get infections? Females MUST have access to things like showers, or they will get physically sick. Do they just tell them to go back to base, take care of themselves and meet up back with your unit? Doesn't that sound insane?

    January 24, 2013 at 7:46 am | Reply
    • Rina

      You sound insane. Just because you have testicles doesn't make you any better. I served along many women who could outdo a lot of the men in my unit. The comment about the infections was hysterical! You really need to study the human body.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:19 am | Reply
    • JayneQP

      Don't be obtuse. Women's menstrual cycles are messy, uncomfortable, frustrating, and fraught with anxiety and exhaustion.... we start when we're about 11-13. By the time we are 19-21 years old, we have had more experience in coping with physical and emotional stress than most young men. I'd say that gives us a leg up (no pun intended) on you fellas when it comes to sitting in a swamp for a week. I can handle pain, stress and anxiety better than most men...and I'm a girly girl. Difference is, I don't condescend to the boys who haven't had that experience, I still think you can handle it... with training.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:21 am | Reply
  39. sheikyerboutie

    God bless these brave women!

    January 24, 2013 at 7:39 am | Reply
    • Jon

      There's nothing brave about it. They've arrogantly forced themselves into a place they don't belong and aren't qualified to be a poart of.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:42 am | Reply
      • JayneQP

        ha ha ha ha!!! that's funny!!! So we' are SOOOOOO strong that we can FORCE our way into a position where we are not wanted.. AND SUCCEEDING, but not strong enough to fight beside you. WOW!

        January 24, 2013 at 8:04 am |
      • JayneQP

        Whoa...So let me get this straight.. we are SOOOOOO strong that we can FORCE our way into a position where we are not wanted.. AND SUCCEEDING, but not strong enough to fight beside you. WOW!

        January 24, 2013 at 8:07 am |
      • TommmyG

        @Jayne stuff a sock in it honey. put your fat carcass back on the couch and grab those Doritos you got with your WIC card. you're SUCCEEDING at being really annoying.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:22 am |
      • MarkinFL

        Are we talking about women or black soldiers? The argument sounds identical.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:29 am |
      • Rina

        Says you? Good thing your opinion doesn't matter on this subject. Um, and by the way, Mr. smart military guy, I guess you think women don't serve in combat now? They have for the last 10 years – only now it is official. They were serving in quasi-combat units back in the 80's when I served.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:37 am |
  40. Charles

    I generally have no issue with this as combat these days is not as linear as it was back 50 years ago. I do see a drop in some standards happening though. Women will never be required to meet the same physical standards as men in the US military. What I do remember of my time in the Infantry was being in the field for weeks at a time, sleeping with nothing but a poncho liner and some trees as my restroom. Moving over to a military police unit which allowed women, we always had to have at least a porta-potty near by, and the females had to have access to a shower every three days. I remember walking with a ruck sack that was so heavy I couldn't stand up on my own, but women won't be expected to do that. Genders will never be equal, as they have very different abilities. I'm sure they'll figure out how to make it work though. Now start forcing them to sign up for the selective service like men.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:35 am | Reply
    • tcp

      Logical and concise Charles. GREAT analysis of the REAL problems associated with this. I recall EXACTLY the same experience when I went from an Armor (all male) to a PSYOP (male/female) unit...

      January 24, 2013 at 7:40 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      So you end by comparing women that volunteer to the general population? That is a total BS argument that has no relevance. It is simply obstructionist without actually having any logical connection.
      Perhaps, one day women will be expected to answer a draft, but that will be a long time coming I suspect. You do not actually support it anyway.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:43 am | Reply
      • Charles

        How is comparing the women volunteers to the general population any different than comparing the male volunteers to the general population? The idea here is to remove the gender barrier. Or is it to remove it only for those who feel like it? Equality works for the good and bad.

        January 24, 2013 at 10:56 am |
    • Soljagurl

      Well put Charles. I did my 20 and got out. I wouldnt want to put up with this mess now. We never had the same physical standard and we never will. Women are of course built different LOL... but again well put...

      January 24, 2013 at 7:46 am | Reply
    • Kilgore

      Combat wasn't linear 50 years ago. During the "Battle of the Bulge" many rear area US Army units were cut off by advancing German spearheads. The Germans on the Eastern Front formed Kampfgruppe consisting of cooks, clerks, and other rear area soldiers in order to counter deep Soviet penetrations. So the idea that combat is somehow different today is a fallacy. What is different is that we now have women in combat support and combat service support units, something we didn't have during WW2.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:49 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      BTW, one of the answers may well be that for women to fill CERTAIN jobs it will require them to meet the same criteria and not have accommodations greater than is required for any other soldier. Remember, they are removing a gender prohibition, haven't read anything yet about changing the jobs.
      Some positions may not need the same physical requirement. Many may be open to a very few select women that can meet the needs of the job. We'll see over the next several years.
      I can assure you that there are MANY women that can handle the rigors and depredations you describe above without showers and potties.
      Your questions are the same ones that have been asked for more than 30 years as women have entered more active roles in the military.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:49 am | Reply
  41. Dan

    They can leave no man behind but they didn't say anything about women. The women are going to put the men in greater danger. The women will not be able to keep up.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:34 am | Reply
  42. samxool

    THIS IS SO WRONG IN THIS PC GONE MAD DAYS.
    THE BIBLE QUITE CLEARLY STATES "Older women train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands so that no one will malign the Word of God."
    AT NO POINT DOES IT SAY WOMEN SHOULD GO OUTSIDE AND ACT LIKE A MAN AND GET A JOB
    A WOMEN'S PLACE IS AT HOME

    January 24, 2013 at 7:34 am | Reply
    • Dan

      Women don't belong in combat but let's leave your fictional book out of this.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:35 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      If not a troll, he may as well be. What a pointless argument to make.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:39 am | Reply
    • tcp

      Women are already IN combat but I agree with your point about the fiction book!

      January 24, 2013 at 7:41 am | Reply
    • Soljagurl

      Sam Sam Sam... it is 2013 AD not 13 AD....

      January 24, 2013 at 7:48 am | Reply
      • Jon

        It's 2013, and women are still physically inferior. Dont expect the biological realities of humanity tochange any time soon.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:57 am |
    • JayneQP

      Oh right... that book that says, "Thou shalt not kill" while condoning lots of killing. I see.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:02 am | Reply
      • Chake

        This is probably the same troll that complains that Muslim women are abused but wants their American women to stay home too.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:51 am |
  43. JOHN

    I can see testosterone sales going up.....I served 25 years, women are physically inferior to men. They cant carry a 200 lb soldier on their back out of harms way if he is injured. They cant march as far with a heavy load. Relationships will develop between men and women and instead of thinking of the unit the male will want to protect the female and jeopardize the unit. Its disgusting to see politicians who have never served feminize our culture and our armed forces. This will cost lives. If they bring back the draft, then they will have to include women.....another reason liberals suckkkk.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:34 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      Oh dear. feeling threatened aren't we. I read so much fear in your post.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:38 am | Reply
      • tex from Virginia

        Fear of what you mo ron? It was quite simply stated that women cant physically keep up with men. Why does that bother you so much?

        January 24, 2013 at 7:50 am |
      • JOHN

        ...yes, if I was in a ground combat unit taking fire and wondering if I was wounded could a 120 lb woman carry me to safety. ...any way, libs like you will never understand..its all about "fairness"..

        January 24, 2013 at 8:37 am |
    • tcp

      I wouldn't "protect" a woman any more or less than I would my brothers-in-arms. That is a RIDICULOUS argument.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:43 am | Reply
      • Jon

        Maybe that part, but the rest is sound. Women are a liability in the military. If you don't understand that, you've clearly never served.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:59 am |
      • JOHN

        ..yes u would, if you were in love/lust with her. Its genetic.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:35 am |
    • tcp

      20 + years Jon. Do we really want to get into a d-i-c-k measuring contest?

      January 24, 2013 at 8:02 am | Reply
      • JOHN

        wow..u are impressive...its ok..no matter what u can still worship the hope and change poster over your bed.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:38 am |
      • tcp

        Registered Republican here. But you just keep towin' that party line boy.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:44 am |
  44. Disabled Marine Corps Vet 1998-2010

    The historical purpose behind women not being allowed on the front lines is the biological differences in brain chemistry.... A man is on the front lines and a child soldier picks up a gun – The man will shoot first.... A woman is on the front lines and a child picks up a gun, that two seconds of hesitation has just cost her life and potentially the lives of her fellow soldiers. It's science. The emotional capacity for women is not only larger, it's simply a part of who they are within our genus. This is a terrible idea and I'm afraid is going to greatly damage our military.

    Semper Fi

    January 24, 2013 at 7:33 am | Reply
    • JOHN

      Good post, libs dont care...they love the feminization of society.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:35 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      Your assumption of reaction in combat situation is hardly scientific. Using scientific knowledge in a non-scientific manner does not add any credibility. Not saying it could not be true, but there is literally no science to back that up.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:36 am | Reply
    • Dan

      Welcome to Obama's America. Thank you for your service.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:38 am | Reply
    • JacknJill

      Says you genius. If I were on a front line I would shoot at anything on the other side, child or not. There would be no boo hooing about it later either. Your ideas about women are from the stone age. If a woman wants to put herself at risk on a front line, so be it. They will be fighting for your right to sit on your fat tail watching football while talking smack about what your idea of a soldier is..

      January 24, 2013 at 7:44 am | Reply
      • Disabled Marine Corps Vet 1998-2010

        I fought for your right to post your opinion. Your welcome.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:59 am |
      • tcp

        You have admittedly never shot at ANYONE. You'd be quite surprised at how much you might "boo-hoo" it once you've done it. For the rest of your days...

        January 24, 2013 at 8:04 am |
    • Stephen1981

      Thank you for your service Warrior. Semper Fi

      January 24, 2013 at 7:59 am | Reply
    • JayneQP

      First, it's reprehensible that you would use your status as a disabled vet to gain a) sympathy and/or b) credibility. That's shenanigans. Second, I believe that before you are placed on the front lines of combat, there is some kind of... oh... what do they call it???? Training? Yes, training. I am also fairly certain that there is a kind...mmmm... what is it???.... Psych test! Yes, that's it exactly. They don't put June Cleaver on the front line for heaven's sake! These are trained soldiers. I would think that someone who experienced Marine training would get that, no?

      January 24, 2013 at 7:59 am | Reply
      • Disabled Marine Corps Vet 1998-2010

        I don't need sympathy, or credibility. Trying to argue over the fact of my status is shenanigans all in itself.

        Training doesn't necessarily oust nature. Fact.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:03 am |
      • JayneQP

        Clearly you do, or you'd let your record speak for itself and post under a name like "BigMan" or some macho cr@p instead of tooting your own horn so blatantly and without a shred of integrity. You make me sick because I know Marine vets and none of them go shouting about it to the world... it's something they clearly learned and you missed... Humility. Integrity. I thanked the real men that fought for my rights, not some self-serving loud mouth who thinks he can determine whether or not a soldier is capable of fighting better than the military in which he served. Sickening.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:10 am |
      • tcp

        Jayne Q Public. You don't get to do that. You disgust me...Marines are some of the proudest, loudest, vocal, in your face people I've ever met. They want the WORLD to know they are g-dam MARINES! You don't get to denigrate their service just because you have slogged swill w/a few of them in some of the seedier bars around J'ville, Lejeune, or Pendleton! Get a grip.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:18 am |
      • JOHN

        ..jayne is already a "soldier"..she is a feminatzi. She is what is wrong with America. Jayne, u are cluless...no use talking to a bitter hag who thinks all straight men are evil and out to get her. Now go watch oprah.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:41 am |
      • JayneQP

        oooo you're all sooo scary... as you tap-tap-tap on your computers, attacking a woman. You're a bunch of sissies. A real man, a real soldier isn't offended or threatened by the strength and capability of a fellow soldier, male or female. Sorry you can't take it. Ninnies.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:53 am |
  45. tcp

    Ruck up! Hope those standards don't get compromised...hope this doesn't create any logistical nightmares...

    January 24, 2013 at 7:32 am | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      Yeah, our military isn't used to dealing with tricky logistics. Agree that it still has to be the appropriate person for the appropriate job. Regardless of gender.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:34 am | Reply
      • Jon

        If that were the case now, 80% of the females would have never graduated basic training.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:03 am |
  46. MATTY13

    They've been in combat for 10 years, now it's official.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:30 am | Reply
  47. Phil

    So what? It's called war. If you don't like it, then do something to stop war. Men get raped in war all the time. In fact the Spartans used to make a special thing of raping captured male soldiers to humiliate them. Women want equal opportunity? Then they shoiuld get equal opportunity to get die: to get captured, tortured, raped and executed just like men do all the time. Sure, they want the perks, early reirement and great pensions that the military offers, and they were getting all that up until now without even risking combat! How is that fair? It was one rule for men and another for women. Just watch the recruitment numbers for women drop like a stone now that they have to play nasty with the boys for _real_ and get bloodied

    January 24, 2013 at 7:29 am | Reply
  48. Cman

    So, women will be able to carry 40-50 lb. of gear and M-60 machine gun and keep up with the men on 8-10 hour patrols and be combat effective when the shooting starts? This is what is going to happen: women will pack less gear. They will not carry any of the heavy weapons which means the heavy workload will be distributed among the men. When it comes time to jump over obstacles or worse hand-to-hand combat with the enemy, women will not be able to keep up with the men meaning that they will put the male solders' lives in danger. This is what happens when politicans that have never served in the military (Obama/Clinton) are put in charge of making strategic military decisions.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:26 am | Reply
    • Jon

      The women in my unit are already a liability. I can't imagine accommodating all of their needs outside the wire.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:30 am | Reply
    • juliemac

      1) Not all men are trained with the M-60, neither will the women. The women in my shooting club can seriously out shoot the guys.
      2) Never fought a woman seriously have you.
      3) for that "delicate" time of month, we would take birth control. Works for the female astronauts.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:01 am | Reply
      • tcp

        Logic not rhetoric. Good answer juliemac.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:07 am |
    • MilitaryMike

      Nobody carries an M-60 anymore. They started phasing those out in the early 1980's. Crew-serve weapons are the M240B(7.62) and M249 S.A.W.(5.56). The heavier of those two is the M240B at 27 pounds. The 240 crew member also has an assistant gunner who usually carries the tripod and extra ammo. As a former U.S. Army infantry soldier, I would have had no issue serving with a woman as long as she was held to the same standard as the men.

      January 24, 2013 at 9:52 am | Reply
  49. edward

    Makes me sick, none of our men should be in combat, and we could have avoided all combat in the past 60 years with a foreign policy our founders saw fit for us. However, we have lost every single war of choice in the past 60 years. There has been no good results in us going to fight and entangling ourselves with the inner workings of other countries. Panetta is a big Jewish guy who wants to kill Muslims with your daughters because there isn't enough men and the ones we do have are going insane after 12 years of combat.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:26 am | Reply
    • MATTY13

      You should submit your resume to the State Department. I'm sure they could use a good laugh.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:30 am | Reply
    • JOHN

      You lefty loon moronic bozo. I hope a crazy muslim attacks u personally.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:30 am | Reply
    • Stephen1981

      As delusional as you may appear, you make a few good points.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:33 am | Reply
  50. Stephen1981

    This should be interesting.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:25 am | Reply
  51. gadzod

    Floyd Zepp just sounds like a child that is mad because other people get attention (that they deserve). What have you done for this country? If you say pay taxes I will laugh. 1. Military does too. 2. If you had a choice to not pay as many taxes or taxes at all, you wouldn't. Don't believe me? I'm sure you didn't mind the Bush tax cuts.

    The Iraq war wasn't meant to stop car bombs in the country. It was meant to overthrow Saddam and have a democracy. They had an election in 2009, and will have another one this year. Regardless of how many car bombs happen there, that isn't our problem. It's theirs. We went in there and I'd what we set out to do to help Iraq. The rest is on them. You wouldn't know that because you're too busy being some hater of America and their troops, but still enjoy you're freedom of being a mental midget on the internet, and probably in real life. I guess I'd be mad too if I was living in mommy and daddy's house working at Burger King at the age of 32 as well....

    January 24, 2013 at 7:25 am | Reply
  52. fo

    Women in the U.S. military are often raped by men in the U.S. military.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:25 am | Reply
  53. joe d

    government getting desparate for recruits..who in there right mind would fight for a bunch of dirtbags that lied about wmd's in iraq, lied about the first failed war in iraq and the lie called vietnam...and fight for a bunch of dirty low-life jews in israel..our corrupt government is a joke..Americans..we have been punked

    January 24, 2013 at 7:22 am | Reply
    • tcp

      Anti-semite much?

      January 24, 2013 at 7:35 am | Reply
  54. Matt in KY

    Good for them (women)! The quest for equality is a confusing trip. To me, combat eligibility has a larger, more elevated, serious long-term effects on the psyche sort of of a deal.
    When I say, "think of the redcoats fighting our Founding Fathers"......you see a picture of men fighting men. 100 years from now, there will be a woman with an M-4 included in that "mind picture".
    Notice the feminine characteristics of some (male) Hindu gods as the life giving force of Shakti (female divine force) spreads to them. I am not religious, but I can see the balance of masculinity/femininity....and.... It doesn't hurt my feelings one bit that the ladies get their chance.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:22 am | Reply
    • Jon

      If they actually had to meet the same physical requirements as everyone else, I'd agree. But unfortunately, "equal" treatment means special treatment as usual.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:26 am | Reply
    • tex from Virginia

      What a bunch of crap. Very few women will be able to carry a full infantry fighting load. If they cant be held to the same physical standards then dont let them in. Sorry no special breaks princess.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:30 am | Reply
    • Scott

      "Feelings" shouldn't be part of this discussion. My personal experience confirms that the idea of sending/allowing women into front-line combat is absurd & disgusting. However, it is sadly indicative of the sorry direction our nation is headed...

      January 24, 2013 at 7:34 am | Reply
      • tcp

        Define front line. I've had experiences with female Soldiers on the "front line". They performed as well as most, better than some, and not as well as a few of the male Soldiers. But that was on mounted patrol. There ARE valid issues. Whether or not women are "good enough" to be on the "front line" is NOT one of them.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:37 am |
  55. George

    I have no problem, as long as, the women accepted have the same physical standards as the men.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:22 am | Reply
    • Jon

      They don't now, so I doubt they will. 50% of the females I would through basic training with would have washed out if they weren't given special treatment and dumbed down standards.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:28 am | Reply
      • MarkinFL

        50%? Not bad, that means 50% could meet the same standards. Quite a large number of capable women.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:56 am |
    • JOHN

      The marine corps has seperate and NOT EQUAL basic training requirements for male and female. If u have ever served, u would know women have easier physical readiness requirements than men, they get more time on runs, less pushup requirements etc etc etc....the other services train together, but women still have easier "pass" requirements....no matter how u spin it, women are physically inferior to men. How will that 120 lb female do in hand to hand combat with another equally trained soldier...political correctness will be the death of many.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:45 am | Reply
  56. Jon

    Does this mean women will finally have to meet the same physical stadards the rest of us do, or will they still get the dumbed down version?

    January 24, 2013 at 7:19 am | Reply
    • military gal

      Men have made the rules that allowed women to have standards applicable for their size and biolgical limitations, and you hold it against us? Don't complain to the women about it – just because our standards are lower doesn't mean some of us can't meet the men's standards. There are a lot of men who cannot meet or barely meet the men's standards but the general line of thinking is that at least their limited abilitiy is higher than the women's standards (again made by men). I have been in training with some women who could stomp all over several men, so don't judge everybody the same. Women should have to meet the same standards as the men in that combat unit – carry the same weight, have the same skills etc., because in combat it's not going to matter what their reproductive organs are. If we can't meet those standards, then we shouldn't be there. If our military leaders mandate that requirement, then all of you who throw different standards in our faces will have to come up with another reason to complain.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:42 am | Reply
      • MarkinFL

        Oh, and they will. Whiners will always whine.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:58 am |
      • Chake

        Right on! Rather than keeping the same low standards, let's raise the standards because there are many of us quite capable and willing to go into combat. The main argument of insecure people is that they fear things in which they most likely will never face: COMBAT, spiders, snakes and good hygiene. Even General Patton had to tell his men to wash their feet-seriously, the mere fact that some men have to be told the most basic things is amazing.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:27 am |
    • Rina

      No, unfortunately, women have to work twice as hard to be thought of as half as good. But I hope some female soldier kicks your *ss someday.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:25 am | Reply
  57. MoMO

    IF THESE WOMEN get captured in combat they will get rape.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:14 am | Reply
    • Cheerios

      That is unfortunately, a very distinct possibility. See what happens when jihadists post their first video of such.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:16 am | Reply
    • Sciguy73

      If you get captured in combat, you could be raped. What is your point?

      January 24, 2013 at 7:19 am | Reply
      • Jon

        I think his point is that women have no place in the military, much less combat.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:21 am |
      • MarkinFL

        The he should have tried to make that point instead of blathering on about how horrible it is to get captured by the enemy.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:59 am |
    • 912guy

      I think this is a mistake..I can understand women wanting equality,but we are NOT created equal.I am a ex police and I can remember when females were dispatched to domestic disputes, I cant tell you how many times that I have arrived on the scene and saw a female officer bear-hugging this 6ft guy from behind with her feet dangling several inches in the air.The guy was basicly just standing up,and I can tell you,if he wanted he could have most likely taken her firearm from her easily and killed her.Yes a woman has the ability to shoot a gun accurately,yes she can read a map,yes she can use reasoning, but in land combat she has no place carrying a 60lb. backpack,a weapon,36lbs of body gear and expect her to march the same distance as a man whom can barely do it and is 2.5 times stronger than her.Just like I have never understood why a president would appoint a women to be secretary of state...and send her to a country where there culture doesnt believe a woman can even speak to a man,and she goes there to delegate?Do you really think this is good tactic? Would Alexander the great,King Clovis of the Franks,Charles the Hammer,King Raja,or Justinian, or Nero? Would any powerful military leader have done that?Yes we live in different times,yes I know times are changing,but that doesnt mean ALL share in this evolving mental acceptance as we do in the U.S. I believe the Army may be setting us up for heaches,and all through history we have always protected our women and children,whats next?Lets just throw grandma on the frontline next week also..This is just my opinion,and I do want all to be treated equal based on not just the mental prowess,but the reality is females and men have a VERY different physical make up that has always kept us operating in our individual,but natural capacity and no matter what we want ,it will always be a factor.AL-Qaida will run with this,and this sends a message that we are losing it with all of these laws for equal rights...no common sense policy anymore...everything is about policy no matter how bad it is! Goodday!

      January 24, 2013 at 7:49 am | Reply
    • Chake

      As if guy-on-guy rape doesn't happen,....sorry pal, it was witnessed in Afghanistan among their own troops. Use your tweezers if you must, but do check for your own phallus.

      January 24, 2013 at 8:19 am | Reply
      • jhysterio

        Guy on guy in Afghanistan is considered normal.

        January 24, 2013 at 8:31 am |
    • Rina

      And what happens to men who get captured? I'm sure they don't make them tea and crumpets and sit down to a nice chat. So, what is your point?

      January 24, 2013 at 8:23 am | Reply
  58. trex

    ................OK OK.......women can go into combat. Just start with Rand Paul............

    January 24, 2013 at 7:10 am | Reply
  59. FedUpwithLA

    Things are heating up in NK. Perhaps the female recruits will get their wish . . .

    January 24, 2013 at 7:09 am | Reply
  60. jtj33

    Soon there will be a quota. Standards lowered to meet the quota. Then someone is gonna die.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:08 am | Reply
  61. joep222

    So sad for our country (the USA). So sad for men who reject their God-given role as leaders and protectors of women and children. So sad that women feel they need to be the head of men, because men are so apathetic and lazy. The world is so very much in rebellion to God.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:06 am | Reply
    • FloydZepp

      You don't speak for God sugar pie. Face it, you old white people are dying off and you don't control America anymore.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:14 am | Reply
    • Justmyopinion

      I can tell you women do not NEED men to protect them or take care of them in everyday life. Your antiquated views have no place in modern society. I thank the brave men AND women who serve in our military to keep us safe.

      January 24, 2013 at 1:50 pm | Reply
  62. Mahhn

    The only reason they did this is that politicians need more cannon fodder. There are less people fooled into joining the current blood for oil program. Politicians abuse the use of the military to no end. Politiians have no respect for life, just money.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:04 am | Reply
  63. Frank

    Ill bet our enemies are shaking in their boots... Probably thinking now they can tap some ash.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:03 am | Reply
  64. scott

    define women? most of these are sleeping with one.

    January 24, 2013 at 7:03 am | Reply
    • TommytheT

      nice real nice, I am sure your parents and/or children as so proud of you.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:05 am | Reply
  65. naeco

    Panetta should also announce that all women between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the selective service.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:55 am | Reply
  66. Dick Gozinyia

    Idiocy

    January 24, 2013 at 6:54 am | Reply
  67. cher

    Women do not belong in combat. What the hell is wrong with people how can anyone believe this is a good idea.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:53 am | Reply
    • FloydZepp

      Maybe women can actually win a war for America. Our men can't seem to get the job done.

      January 24, 2013 at 6:56 am | Reply
      • Peter Bishop

        Congratulations on another asinine move by this administration.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:07 am |
    • naeco

      No one belongs in combat.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:00 am | Reply
    • JacknJill

      What do you care if women choose to fight? They're doing it for you and me so we don't lose the right to sit on our azz and watch Jersey Shore while scarfing Mcdonalds. Women know their limits, if their willing to take that chance I say go for it..

      January 24, 2013 at 7:38 am | Reply
  68. fiftyfive55

    @Floyd-dont count your chickens just yet.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:50 am | Reply
    • FloydZepp

      Right, because losing Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, and now Afghanistan isn't a trend.

      January 24, 2013 at 6:51 am | Reply
      • Dnal

        Who lost Iraq twice, and how can you say Afghan is lost? Know your history Floyd, and your present. The Afghan people are set up by those lost lives you just tried to cheapen. They have been given the resources and the training to maintain a free and prosperous country, now it is up to them to maintain it. Iraq was given the same thing, what do you think a victory really looked like?

        January 24, 2013 at 6:55 am |
      • FloydZepp

        Yeah Dnal, Afghanistan, and Iraq are shining Democracies like Bush said they'd be. Vietnam, isn't still communist and we don't have to worry about North Korea and nukes. LOL. What a great set of victories for our Male Military. Maybe we should hold a parade.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:00 am |
      • U.S.M.C. 1371

        You sound like a member of west borough Baptist church

        January 24, 2013 at 7:02 am |
      • FloydZepp

        U.S.M.C 1371, quit losing and I won't complain. Why am I paying you with my tax dollars? Would you like a parade too? Maybe a plane full of clapping people lauding your "service"?

        January 24, 2013 at 7:05 am |
      • chris

        We lost in Iraq? We were sent to remove Saddam and set up a democracy done and done. Just because you don't like what those people voted for does not mean we lost.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:05 am |
      • FloydZepp

        Right Chris, just because they have car bombs going off there everyday still and you can't walk down the streets of Iraq without being afraid must mean there is a shining democracy there. Its called American Failure – again.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:08 am |
      • Red State Forever

        FloydZepp, why do you hate America? If you hate our government so much you can git out.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:25 am |
    • Mike

      Don't let Floyd get you down. He's obviously been drinking ... AGAIN. He'll wake up in 2-3 days feeling like a whole new fool.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:18 am | Reply
    • Mike

      Don't let Floyd get you down. He's obviously been drinking ... AGAIN. He'll sober up in a few days feeling like a whole new fool.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:19 am | Reply
  69. FloydZepp

    Women can't do any worse that the men. The men in the military lost Vietnam and came home weeping, they lost Iraq and now they are losing in Afghanistan. And they come home weeping wanting special privilege.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:46 am | Reply
    • Mahhn

      Nam was lost due to politics, not fighting. how uninformed can you be?

      January 24, 2013 at 6:54 am | Reply
      • FloydZepp

        Yeah, its everybody's fault but yours.

        January 24, 2013 at 7:03 am |
  70. Larry

    just what we need,pms women with automatic rifles

    January 24, 2013 at 6:42 am | Reply
  71. Tyler

    The only people pushing for this are career officers who want to make General and know they can't do it without commanding a combat unit. Does anybody REALLY think the vast majority of female soldiers and Marines want anything to do with front line combat? This is being rammed down their throats and we'll see what effect it has on female recruiting and retention.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:36 am | Reply
    • fiftyfive55

      A real good way to get a promotion would be to expose how many "illegal aliens"have infested our military.The "illegal alien "is allowed in the military(for the life of me,I'll never understand this)so why not let women do your fighting for ya?

      January 24, 2013 at 6:41 am | Reply
      • quincy0332

        No. It's because enough women want to get killed that they changed the rule to make them stop whining.

        January 24, 2013 at 6:48 am |
    • FloydZepp

      riiiiiiight.

      January 24, 2013 at 6:42 am | Reply
  72. Bobber

    Is this because not enough men are joining at this time?

    January 24, 2013 at 6:34 am | Reply
  73. scott

    We need the draft back. Why does 5% of the population take care of the rest of the people? I think all should give 2-4 years for their country. Go in at an early age, save for college, serve your country. Why Not?

    January 24, 2013 at 6:32 am | Reply
    • FloydZepp

      5% takes care of the rest of us? They can't even defeat a few thousand tribal goat herders in over ten years now. That's not being, "taken care of".

      January 24, 2013 at 6:34 am | Reply
      • vavuz

        Why don't YOU join and make it happen then

        January 24, 2013 at 8:34 am |
    • danita

      I serve my country by working and paying taxes... I shouldn't have to be a darn man. Also all men are not for the military because they aren't all men... Oh I am a tax payer who really pays taxes. Got a big 70.00 refund coming back from the wonderful obama... Only getting that because they gave me credit for paying for one of my kids college loan..

      January 24, 2013 at 6:37 am | Reply
      • FloydZepp

        Quit blaming everybody but yourself.

        January 24, 2013 at 6:39 am |
  74. NealR2000

    I have no problem with this but these women must be fully made aware of what will likely happen to them in the case of being captured by the enemy. For men, capture can lead to physical brutality but for women, it can lead to repeated and violent rape.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:30 am | Reply
    • FloydZepp

      Men can be raped too.

      January 24, 2013 at 6:33 am | Reply
      • NealR2000

        True, but it rarely happens in enemy capture situations. We have, however, seen it happen regularly in situations when women are captured.

        January 24, 2013 at 6:36 am |
    • Don

      LAPD did not allow female officers to work patrol due to being too dangerous. Courts forced LAPD to allow females to work patrol as long as they could pass the very tough LAPD academy. Over 300 women entered the police academy. None passed. (The courts forced LAPD to lower the physical stands claiming they were discriminatory.)

      January 24, 2013 at 6:45 am | Reply
    • Sciguy73

      I would suspect that women are already aware of that. Combat zones aren't the only places women might worry about rape.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:18 am | Reply
  75. Tyler

    Does this mean they'll have to meet the same physical training standards as men in boot camp and beyond?

    January 24, 2013 at 6:27 am | Reply
    • Frank

      Of course not, they're women. They want all the benefits of being being a man "WITHOUT" the responsibility that comes with being a man. Im sure they still have the "OPTION" of combat or not. Do men have that option?

      Give me all the benefits men get but don't expect me to be able to what they can do... After all, Im just a girl.

      January 24, 2013 at 6:43 am | Reply
    • wb

      No.

      January 24, 2013 at 6:44 am | Reply
  76. fiftyfive55

    What kind of man,let alone country,let's women do their fighting for them ??? Well,we've just become the laughing stock of the world.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:24 am | Reply
    • FloydZepp

      Maybe women can actually defeat the few thousand goat herders in the Middle East. The men i n the military obviously can't.

      January 24, 2013 at 6:26 am | Reply
      • fiftyfive55

        As an American,We were raised to believe that men who let their women do their fighting weren't real men and that still goes today.

        January 24, 2013 at 6:37 am |
      • FloydZepp

        You must be an old white man. Your time is over.

        January 24, 2013 at 6:43 am |
      • Dnal

        Go ahead and negate the sacrifice of so many....some paid all, while some just paid with their limbs....if the military wasn't restricted by politicians, they would have beat the well trained militants

        January 24, 2013 at 6:47 am |
      • That guy

        Do you read what you type before you press enter?

        January 24, 2013 at 6:48 am |
  77. RScottus

    Kind of sick to listen people say it is a woman's "right" to go and get shot up. The Isreali's learned the hard way in their war for Independence when integrated units suffered the highest casualties. Thats when they pulled women from combat. Learn from others, don't repeat their mistakes. Anyone remember how the amount of pregnancies of non-combat women spiked at the outset of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yeah, great idea in peace time. Wait until 10% of your unit gets preggers when called to deploy.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:24 am | Reply
  78. FloydZepp

    Women couldn't do any worse that the male TeaDummies that infest the military that can't even defeat a few thousand tribal goat herders armed with only AK-47s in over 10 years now.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:23 am | Reply
    • Karl

      Make that "a few thousand tribal goat herders" who really hate Americans and the Afghan government, believe in their cause, are ready to die for it, don't mind noncombatant casualties (and hide in villages full of noncombatants), believe they have Allah/God on their side, and will be sent to Paradise if they kill their enemies while fighting. All while fighting in some of the most rugged terrain on Earth, which they know like the back of their hand.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:02 am | Reply
    • tex from Virginia

      Who needs to kill pedophile worshiping goat herders when we can eliminatr a whole family by dropping a hellfire on their mud hut.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:46 am | Reply
  79. John Stewart

    I am all for women in combat units, however, my belief is that equality means equal standards. The women should be able to pass the same standards as the men. The standard should not be lowered because women are now in the combat units. Discipline should be strictly enforced and it should be a crime to sleep around in the unit. Remember folks. These are units in which life and death decisions are made. This isnt your regular work place where widgets are sold. Go to the Icasualties dot org website and you will find a list of soldiers who died. Thats what its about.

    Equality means equal standards and I dont mean lowering the existing standards. If at all anything, the today's standards should be raised. You should be kicked out of the military if you cant reach the standards of fitness.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:22 am | Reply
  80. Chuck Anziulewicz

    If you are capable of meeting the physical demands of combat duty, you should be allowed to participate if you want. Many men are NOT up to the challenge. Many women ARE. Enough of the chauvinism already.

    January 24, 2013 at 6:22 am | Reply
  81. empresstrudy

    One less thing for angry women to complain about. So they'll complain about THAT

    January 24, 2013 at 6:14 am | Reply
  82. CommanderBill

    Why not? It works in the movies. Everything in the movies is true. Didn't I just see Milica Jovović kill hundreds of zombies?

    January 24, 2013 at 6:02 am | Reply
  83. nwo

    Destruction of the American family , suicide among male soldiers returning from these atrocities called wars has spiked , now begins a new chapter on suicide spikes on women returning from these wars ..

    January 24, 2013 at 6:01 am | Reply
  84. Winston5

    I'd rather have these "birthers" in the military than the crayzee kind...! 🙂

    January 24, 2013 at 5:59 am | Reply
  85. THETERP

    I say :"yes" as long as they meet the same rigorous physical requirements the men do.

    January 24, 2013 at 5:53 am | Reply
    • 688guy

      They should be treated EXACTLY the same as men, shaved heads and all...

      January 24, 2013 at 5:59 am | Reply
      • Bill

        I guess you have never served before because if you had then you realize that having a "shaved" head is not required.....Most male soldiers choose to get the "high and tight" style cut during basic training and AIT but once you finish training then many male soldiers go back to having a semi "normal" hairstyle.....

        January 24, 2013 at 6:24 am |
  86. bobby brown

    This is great news, now , when they say number 123 run up the hill, man or women, they run up the hill, if they get killed , number 124 goes, Treat them all the same!

    January 24, 2013 at 5:45 am | Reply
    • 688guy

      I've been saying that same thing since my Navy days during Vietnam, a chick can step on a land mine just as well as a dude can! Problem back then was that you couldn't make them work at all and they got $84 per month more than we did because they couldn't go to sea and get free (lovely) meals...

      January 24, 2013 at 5:57 am | Reply
    • ScottCA

      I am all for everyone having the right to fight for their country.
      I just feel sorry for the first woman to be taken prisoner–rape and war have gone hand and hand throughout history.
      Women prisoners will likely be subjected to barbarous treatment the likes of which I would hate to think about.

      January 24, 2013 at 5:58 am | Reply
      • Snowman

        You've obviously never heard of Jessica Lynch.

        January 24, 2013 at 6:28 am |
    • ScottCA

      I am all for everyone having the right to fight for their country.
      I just feel sorry for the first woman to be taken prisoner–r@pe and war have gone hand and hand throughout history.
      Women prisoners will likely be subjected to barbarous treatment the likes of which I would hate to think about.

      January 24, 2013 at 5:58 am | Reply
  87. Hank

    I don't think this will really pose that much of an issue. There is an overlap in physical abilities between the two genders. I mean, sure, in the olympics, the male runners might outrun the females, but in your highschool gymclass, didn't a few of the athletic chicks outperform the less athletic guys? Let's be honest. I have seen men on the lower end of the physical spectrum go into the army and do just fine. Therefore, a typicalwoman can do the daily grunt's work, it just might take a little time in boot camp, as more physical might be needed. A few countries have implemented female soldiers in the past with good results. Russia had women fighting on the front lines in WWII, and featured a prominent pilot group called the "Night Witches" who were notorious among German troops. There are various stories of fearless Viking "Shield Maidens" who would go off into battle and kick serious butt. So what if women are in the military. They are perfectly capable of pulling their own weight. Besides, I can some military occupations women might be better at, such as sniping or scouting, which is very prominent in warfare nowadays.

    January 24, 2013 at 5:38 am | Reply
  88. Foxhole Party

    Men and women in a foxhole together, at night, on the front lines? Sounds like a party to me.

    January 24, 2013 at 5:33 am | Reply
    • TampaMel

      Obviously you have never been in the military nor in combat. No one in the midst of a fire fight is thinking of anything other than staying alive. Either grow up or think before you say or write anything.

      January 24, 2013 at 5:45 am | Reply
      • Allan

        Yes because there are not military women getting pregnant while in a combat zone is there? (Sarcasm) My problem with this is and I am a Veteran of the United States Marine Corps and I mean no offense to the women but when I was in 2004-2012 the WM's that I saw and I saw quite a few could not drag a 180 to 210 pound man all the way to safety, now that is not saying that there are not women out there who could do it. My thought is, put them as snipers. A womans attention to the small details is what can make them an outstanding sniper, but on the frontlines with the males I dont agree with it at all.

        January 24, 2013 at 6:16 am |
      • ernieb28

        @TampaMel, I agree with your comment. I don't understand why everything seems to be a joke with people. People should learn to think first before they speak...... enough said!

        January 24, 2013 at 7:34 am |
  89. ernieb28

    I don't agree with this decision because it has the potential to tactically compromise our forces. Psychologically, men are raised up to protect because we have more of an aggressive nature. It's harder on a man's contentious to see women and children as casualties in the field of battle, than to see another man wounded or killed. They will be targeted as potential hostages, pure and simple! If caught, they will likely be repeatedly raped and tortured in grotesque fashion. Is this country really ready for that? I think not.

    January 24, 2013 at 5:23 am | Reply
    • Peter Rarckep

      Personally I think that the service of women in all kind of units, functions, ranks already shows that it indeed is working. Besides the emotional side of the discussion there is the political and operational.

      the political pretty much focuses on the question of "are female bodybags worse (for a politician) than male ones?" and here the reality of Afghanistan, Iraq and loads of other places already gave the answer. 190 KIA 100s WIA. No they are not. they are as bad as male ones.

      the operational is that maybe some of these 190 would still be alive if they had combat training and not just some power point on "take care its dangerous there, but we will keep you in the back anyway". Sure there would be others who would have been KIA but (and I think most people who actually are seriously thinking about heading into combat service will agree) IF they meet the same standards physically and mentally as everybody else they have every right and reason to do so.

      I do even believe that you get some pretty good soldiers of those who make it. Because it will be the upper 10% who make it not the upper 30 to 40% of the male candidates (Special Forces excluded). Especially mentally you will get the ones who train relentlessly, are fighters and pain resistant cause they worked their butts off to make it.

      two more points:

      I also dont think that soldiers and marines will sacrifice themselves to safe a women comrade. They already do that every day for their male comrades. Its the basic qualification you have to bring as a combat soldier. To be willing to run into fire for your friend. If we question the first casualty who died or got wounded because he helped a female soldier we have to revoke pretty many medals because it was sometimes awarded for throwing yourself on a grenade, recover a fallen comrade, holding a position to cover an evacuation. I mean where is the point in that.

      Rape concerns? Show me the one squad, platoon, company that is just waiting for a women to show up to rape it, most of them are husbands, fathers, boyfriends themselves. they dont rape at home they dont . Female corpsmen and soldiers throughout the service already proof otherwise.

      January 24, 2013 at 5:33 am | Reply
      • ernieb28

        @ Peter Rarckep. You made valid points, however the fact still remains women in "front line combat" is largely untested and still present a high risk factor. Lastly, the comment I made regards to women potentially being raped had to do with being targeted and then caught by by enemy forces and then brutalized. Thats not to be confused with US troops being the would be culprit. I salute all (men & women) US troops and I pray we never have to deal with even greater demoralizing events of war that may compromise our judgment.

        January 24, 2013 at 6:10 am |
    • Winston5

      are u serious....ever try to come between a mother and her child??

      January 24, 2013 at 5:36 am | Reply
  90. GI Jane lol

    Women actually are notorious for becoming pregnant upon deployment, rotations, the threat of deployment... A year or 2 back an Army Gen. got in hot water for giving a female soldier an Article 15 for getting pregnant while on deployment. (They get pregnant? It's a ticket home early!)
    They made him back off of her. They guy? He was still nailed for adultery...

    January 24, 2013 at 5:19 am | Reply
    • Katie

      Women "get pregnant"? Really? No man involved? and oh, the poor man you know about, he got nailed for adultery? Oh poor, poor guy! Oh the sad reality of a man having to face up to his own behavior!!! I know many women in the military, one of them my own sister, who became pregnant. NONE of them wanted to get pregnant. Four of them, including my sister, were assaulted by a superior officer. Guess how many of those guys got nailed? ZERO.

      January 24, 2013 at 7:16 am | Reply
  91. GI Jane lol

    Right on Craig!
    And shave their heads upon entering Basic Training too! (You know, strip away any sense of individuality–like they do SOLDIERS!)

    January 24, 2013 at 5:16 am | Reply
  92. GI Jane lol

    Women in comat is fine in an urban comat setting (they were there anyway in Iraq.)
    Let a jungle combat scenario like Vietnam happen again (or mountainous like Korea,) and women will find they simply can't do it (actually, they'll have them carry lighter loads... The male soldiers will pick up the slack...)
    10 mile road march with an 80 pound ruck? Not happening.

    I'll never forget the faces of the field artillery unit I saw road marching in full gear (as I was leaving Camp Casey, Korea.) Every one of those men had their faces down, just "broke off"... The look on thier faces was as if there was no hope in the universe. Got that base plate slappin' em in the hamstrings with every step.

    Urban areas, I think it'd be ok. But that's about it.

    January 24, 2013 at 5:12 am | Reply
  93. Craig

    So all 18 year and up women have to register with Selective Service?

    January 24, 2013 at 5:06 am | Reply
  94. larry

    So let me get this straight. I Democrat.Liberal thought process.
    My daughter serving in the armed forces and in combat dies in action.
    I get a form letter from Hillary and the Obama administration that says " What difference does it make at this point?"
    Ya right! You democrats are colon babies and my daughter will not be fighting for you any time soon.

    January 24, 2013 at 5:03 am | Reply
    • Sane Person

      We really didn't think you would man up and serve yourself, but maybe your kids will do so if they decide to actually do something for thier country, rather than complain about everything.

      January 24, 2013 at 5:11 am | Reply
    • Harley

      Good,
      Then keep her home in the kitchen raising babies where she belongs

      January 24, 2013 at 5:57 am | 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.