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.
@natlsecuritycnn on Twitter
Hey...idea...put them all in the same unit and send them to Noth Korea and see what happens. What could we lose?
Apparently, an "r".
Cool. Looking forward to the ladies getting a chance at registering for the draft at 18 too.
No, they only want to be treated equal when it's convenient for them.
There is NOTHING about being a women in America that is convenient. It seems that woman are used as pawns in political standoffs and now for war purposes. Most women have no desire to go to war and neither should men. War is a horrible thing.
I am woman hear me roar! 🙂 Good day for the USA!
Meow !!!
Infantry is not the only combat MOS and perhaps they will not be deemed appropriate for some roles. Clearly women are not the same as men physically however that does not mean they do not hold value in some combat MOS roles. When this argument flies the first people to pipe up are "infantry grunts" are the first ones to start bashing the concept. We get it, physically you are superior. As an aside I have a daughter who is deploying to Afghanistan in two weeks. She trained at Ft. Drum and was awarded at NTC for her performance, not because she was a woman, but because she was smart, a good problem solver, an excellent marksman and was able to perform physically next to men.
As proud as you are of your daughter...that doesn't mean she passed the same physical test as the men. I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed in or anything, but...
Aspects like that, she should be in Military Intelligence and not in any combat MOS's
Yes, I was a 'COMMO' guy with the Field Artillery at Battalion level and I can see women doing that job and any other Field Artillery MOS's including 13 Bravo , Cannon Crewmember . Besides who wants to join the Infantry when you can shoot the BIG GUNS ?? .. hooah
Many women are certainly physically superior to many men. So let's not over generalize. Also, as you point out, there's a lot more to being a good soldier or Marine than physical strength.
So you are basically arguing that if I randomly select 100 men and 100 women most of those women will be physically superior to their male counterparts. Really? Hmmm, that's not been my experience.
QinMA,
Props to your daughter and god speed in Afghan, I have been to some more kinetic areas in the Helmend Province as a grunt. I must say I am highly anti women in combat, and I also support equal opportunity. I am fuming at this decision because intermixing genders within ground combat units will destroy the cohesion and fraternal machine which wins battles. This decision is a social experiment, battles are about killing the enemy with speed and efficiency. Intermixing genders will create a rise in lost American life. I also must highlight there are some men who can't keep up physically, and I am all about abolishing them from war fighting as well.
You're "anti women in combat" and all for "equal opportunity". You just contradicted yourself. Why not apply your last statement equally to men and women. If a GI can't keep up physically (or mentally) they shouldn't be in the combat unit.
What would be grossly unfair is if guys that wanted roles other than "infantry grunt" couldn't get them because women had to be placed in those roles first since they weren't allowed to be infantry grunts. While I support women in combat in a general sense, I would not support it if it resulted in women being given priority in roles like artillery to the point where guys that would have wanted those roles get "bumped".
You might not hear as many complaints from the "infantry grunts" if females were held to the same standards.
I watched good troops get cycled out of basic training because their run times were too slow, yet MINUTES faster than the females that were allowed to proceed with training.
Finally, some equality! Next, I hope they win the fight with the NFL and get some women on those teams. Each team ought to have to start a woman on their offensive and defensive teams without exception. And while they are at it, add some more female sports writers to the mix, especially for the NFL. When I look for an NFL update and find one written by "The Peter King," I always have a good laugh.
War has become a video game. Certainly women can play video games.
For every GI. Jane there are 3 barbie dolls. The question is, how many women are going to sign up, not knowing what they are getting themseleves into, and merely trying to prove a point.... Also, how many ball punching grunts are going to want to listen to a platoon SGT who's a female when in contact.
And you don't think there are already tons of men who sign up not knowing what they are signing up for?
Let the women have their combat roles. However, now there might be some rules put i place. Such as, husbands and wives (or significant others) cannot be in combat roles at the same time especially if they have dependents. Single parents may not be in combat roles unless there is proof of a strong guardian relationship for the dependent(s) at home.
I hadn't thought of that, but well said. We can't have a situation where kids are orphaned because mom and dad got killed during the same tour of duty. It would also be impractical to have both mom and dad serving overseas at the same time – who would look after the kids? In situations where mom and dad are both in the military their service should be staggered so that one of them is at home at all times, which I assume is already the case?
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you have dependents or not. Every soldier with dependents, including those that are dual military, are required to have what is called a family care plan. This is a plan that outlines what happens to the child/dependent when one or both parents/guardians are deployed. In my experience, many couples have their children go to a grandparent's home. From what I have seen, every effort is made to have at least one parent stateside, but sometimes both deploy if absolutely necessary.
I believe that's already a standard policy, and has been since women were first permitted to serve in any capacity. "Non-combat" does not mean there's no chance of getting killed.
I never quite understood the desire of white guys to be the only ones that get to die at the front. In WWII there were a few non-white battalions that served with great honor, but most non-white soldiers stayed in the back serving vital (but safer) supply needs. With modern weapons, I don't think physical strength is as important as it was back in the days of shields and swords so provided women receive the same training why not expand the pool of people that gets to die for their country. I am sure there are plenty of guys nominating their ex-wives for that honor right now.
Up to WWII Black Americans were excluded from ground combat roles by military policy. The theory that the Black American Male would not fight or react in combat as effectively as a non-black male IE Asian, Hispanic Caucasian, not as you subtly imply the race card "white guys". Lets be up front, it was racism period. Black American Males fought heroically in the US Civil War. A portrait of a heroic Black American Male is the slave running away from the plantation to join the Union Army and leaving behind family at the mercy of the overseer. Eleanor Roosevelt convinced the War Dept. to begin ending this terrible policy. To the happiness of many "white" men in the trenches the Black American Man proved once again his bravery, honor, Leadership Qualiities and patriotism. Now he deserves the societal rewards for over 2 centuries of fidelity to his country. BTW I am not a liberal by any means contrary to liberal opinion most conservatives feel this way, especially vets..
Not sure if you thought I disagreed with you, but I agree wholeheartedly about black Americans and the contributions they've made in combat over the years. Not allowing them to fill all roles in the military was a stupid policy, and my point is that not allowing women to do the same today when physical strength is rarely decisive in modern warfare is also stupid policy. No doubt most women will be at a disadvantage if it ever comes down to hand-to-hand combat, but it should really never come down to hand-to-hand combat if things are planned out correctly since hand-to-hand combat is a crap shoot no military leader should subject his troops to.
You keep hearing of gender equality, gender equality. There will never be a heavyweight boxing champ thats a female, there will never be womens hockey team better than a male hockey team, women will never equal men in strength, never it is impossible. Lets celebrate gender distinction. I shutter at effeminate men as well as tom boys.
"Lets celebrate gender distinction. I shutter at effeminate men as well as tom boys."
comment of the year! hahahahaha
why thanks ole chap
I completely agree. Change the name to gender distinction. It sounds more accurate to male and females. There are just some things men can do women can't and vice versa. Women need to shut up and maximize their own natural strengths instead of trying to prove themselves to be as physically equal to men. We are made differently for a reason.
Good points! If only people would be logical and remember that!
Speak for yourself, Anna. I am female and have been in the Army for almost seven years and I didn't come here to prove anything to anyone. You are, however, welcome for my service, just like the other people in American that look a gift horse in the mouth.
I agree with you on the sports analogies. My sister use to ask me why I only watched the men's 100 meters in the Olympics and didn't care about the women's and my reply was that I wanted to see the fastest PERSON in the world and that was always going to be a guy. Same reason I watch men's hockey, the NBA and not the WNBA, etc. I want to see the best PEOPLE in each sport. I remember when Martina Navratilova was by far the best women's tennis player and the press asked her if she thought it was unfair that she couldn't compete with the men, and her honest response was that she couldn't beat anyone ranked in the top 100 on the men's side because of their speed and power. Now the military is something different, if a woman can carry a gun, make it up the hill, etc., then I'm all for sharing the pain on the front lines.
I should clarify that there are minimum physical requirements that must be met. It would be unacceptable to have women in combat (and for that matter smaller and weaker men) who couldn't carry their own gear for long distances, etc as may be required. It would be totally unacceptable for men to have to shoulder an additional burden in combat just so women could get their right to participate. No one should have to put their life at risk for "equality".
By "shutter" do you mean that you are a photographer and like to take their pictures?
negative jim, i mean that feeling you get when you see a guy wearing high heels and a mini skirt, and an overweight woman in a plaid shirt growing facial hair.
I think you mean "I shudder at...."
If you "shutter", that implies you withdraw, close up, and keep to yourself about it.
If you plot stregth vs number of persons separately for men and women the male cure will be on the stronger side. But there will be much overlap. What this means is that the strongest person in the world (or in the US) will always be a man and a man who is stronger than 50% of men is probably stronger than 60% of women. All this means very little when judged on an individual basis, which is how they should be judged.
I highly doubt your compairing FIT men and woman. I'm about 20lbs overweight; I lift weights infrequently and do cardio not at all, but I'm pretty sure I can dead lift 150 pounds, bench 180, and run three miles in 25 minutes, but I doubt even a woman that trained regularly could overpower me.
If women can meet the SAME physical standards as the men, then let them serve wherever they qualify. Whatever happens, the standards should NOT be lowered. Before women start the school/training, and certainly before they go into combat, they should sign a waiver stating that they will accept no special treatment for menstruation difficulties, will carry the same equipment/backpack weight as their male contemporaries and understand (which they won't until it happens) what will happen if they are captured.
Women, combat is not playing in the dirt or mud during the day and coming back home to take a shower and put on clean clothes. It's weeks on end in hot deserts, humid jungles or cold mountains. I haven't been, but 90% of those I love have. If you can do it, God bless you and give you strength, but remember – it's not anything like the movie GI Jane.
Your post is the most offensive I've ever read. "Combat is not playing in the dirt"? How dare you offend women who are enlisted and ALREADY facing combat because they are 'attached' to combat units just not OFFICIALLY listed in combat positions. Do you think the 865 women who've already been wounded don't KNOW that combat is not 'playing in the dirt'. Shut up and go back to making sandwiches.
how direspectful of you
I only respect people who deserve it. Like women who get shot at but can't get paid or promoted for it. Not snotty "Single moms" who act like their crap doesn't stink. I can see why she's single.
Irony.
"I can see why she's single."
Single mom who says 90% of those she's loved have served in the military... I think you are treading on some very risky ground there.
Yeah I went twice already. I don't need advice, thanks.
SGT Wilson, thank you for your service. Glad you made it back safely. God speed.
Tethy, you clearly sound like yet another person who does NOT understand what being an infantryman entails. OH, women have been wounded. Wow. That does not prove them fit for an infantryman's job. There is a massive difference between riding around in trucks, or walking alongside the grunts, and actually being one, doing a movement to contact, going out to look for a fight, every single day.
"Oh but they live, sleep, eat with the infantry already". You know what? I can show you a bunch of 40 year old beer bellied school teachers and gas station attendants, who (by virtue of their speaking Arabic) also lived, slept, and patrolled with the grunts. That doesn't make them a good prospect to fill their jobs.
Well said. Couldn't agree more with all of the points you've made.
wow, can't respond to tethyrs. How is it offensive to point out hard truths and say it's not a movie?
I'm a veteran, with two sons and a brother currently active duty. I don't want their lives at more risk because of women who couldn't meet the standards. I do not want women put at risk because of lowered standards.
You did get that, right? The part about standards being the same across the board?
Over 400 American women soldiers have already died in our most recent wars, many from bombs and bullets. Sir, show some respect! What, they are women, so their contributions don't count! Are their lost lives worth less than their brothers in arms? Women are already exposed to combat, and they already serve and die for this country. And what is this 'forced' to sign up for service. Since Vietnam, the draft was eliminated and it has been a volunteer army. It sounds like you are carrying two shovel loads of hate for half the population.
While your overall points may have some validity, no woman openly seeking a combat role has any misunderstanding of what they are getting themseleves into. It is pretty offensive that you would imply that some women think serving in a combat role equates to "playing in the dirt". If you are a soldier, you understand what you are getting into, man or woman.
Excellent. Now there is no excuse of any kind for women not to register for the draft. One less double standard to worry about.
What I find really funny about the commenters in this article is that most of them would be beat to @*#&()@&# and then consumed for breakfast by any one of these women signing up for combat duty. Talk about Internet machoism.
speak for yourself wimp.
yes, because i claimed to be a tough guy. i'm just calling you wimps out.
You're a funny guy, kola. Sad, buy funny. Like a weeping clown. Let it all out, fella. I'll listen, if it helps.
So true. Many that run their mouths about women in combat would get whooped by those same women.
It is quite disheartening to see that our society and culture have not evolved to a point where there can be intelligent, rational conversation regarding women serving in combat roles. Let's be clear, women are already serving. I am not going to make the argument that women can do everything a man can do because clearly that is not the case, however both genders have their strengths. It is nice to see that there will be a review of the roles in our military and assessment of best fit for the job. War is war folks, regardless of whether it is a woman or a man serving atrocities will occur. As for the argument against special warfare (including drones and other smart weapons), clearly they are the weapons of the future, more surgical, more cost effective and less collateral damage. And for those of you who are having difficulty wrapping your not totally evolved brains around the concept, take a look at who the people are who are running the companies that bring us the smart weapons that require fewer boots on the ground, yes sir, they are women!
Should women be recruited and required to serve in combat arms as the majority of males are recruited for such? Should women be required to sign up for the selective service? Thanks
Yes, once a determination of combat appropriate roles are defined, they should be required to register/serve. Although I think most of us would agree that "selective service" should be overhauled.
Then let’s move forward with all God's speed. I image our future military force will reflect our future population, thus the majority of our service members will be non-white females and non-white men taking it to the enemy. I hope you will push to have these faces included in the policy positions and corp leadership posts to reflect this future truth. I await your support.
oh thank you most evolved mentor, oh thank you.
No suprise that you cannot handle conversation that requires use of your brain.
war is MUR DER... when you put a normal person in that position it WILL destroy them... women can play if they want but they will turn into something they won't recognize. MOST men who fight and K I L L can barely manage afterwards. if you wanna test whether YOU can K I L L , get a bb gun and shoot a bird... if you feel nothing.. you can K I L L ... but ... if you FEEL an innate sadness when you watch the life leave a living creature by YOUR HAND ... you cannot K I L L... and if you do... you will not live well afterwards...
Geash, but you must be young. Some do return from the horror of war changed and broken, and others come back and become politicians or start businesses and go on with their lives. These last two wars have certainly affected many families and cost a hell of a lot for the country, but don't compare to the end results of Vietnam, Korea and WW II. No American family was left untouched after these wars, both in casualties and horrific injuries. For generations children would return from these wars and have a common bond with their fathers. It was almost a rite hood for becoming a man. It is only recently where most fathers have NOT served their country. Frankly, women have always backed their men up by serving as well, and often put themselves in harms way, like nursing.
So your totally evolved brain believes that because a woman runs a company as effectively as men, women are capable of handing combat as effectively as men? Be honest, when the sh!t hits the fan, who would YOU rather be in a foxhole with?
I would rather be in a foxhole with a qualified, dedicated fellow soldier, man or woman, than someone like you who would refuse to fight alongside someone because of gender.
WOMEN have already been in combat, even recently, but certainly for a long time. I guess you feel that Israel and Russian women are stronger than the US, and that our military is incapable of training them. The fact is, hundreds of American women have already died from our current wars, and thousands have seen combat. There appear to be a lot of women hating hoo-ahs on this site who feel half the population have no right to speak and should walk two paces behind them. If YOU want respect, you need to go back to your mother and have her teach you some. This isn't a new experiment, and those women who hear the same call as you and physically can meet the challenge and requirements, will do so with honor. Let's hope male soldiers can do the same, without making their women counterparts just another enemy.
A fully qualified soldier, no matter the gender.
SELECTIVE SERVICE FOR ALL!!!!
In WW2 the soviets had entire combat battalions made of women and they fought as well as men did without ending up raping thousands of German and Polish women like soviet soldiers did in one of the most forgotten war crimes of the 20th century. So provided they have separate combat units I don't see a problem with women in combat roles.
Tango, would you really want your mother, sisters, daughters fighting a war? why does it strike me as immoral?
Because you are not a forward thinker?
So you want to decide what your daughters or sisters can do for them? You don't want them to decide for themselves? No wonder you are still stuck in the fifties. Grow up, you wimp.
coca-kola, would you like your father, brothers, sons fighting a war? I, personally, would not like anyone fighting a war but when the time comes to fight it would be up to them, both men and women, to decide whether to enlist or not. They will probably grown ups and should decide by themselves. Why making a distinction between men and women? Isn't the immorality your position of making a difference and think that they cannot make a decision by themselves but instead there should be some "high authority" making the decision for them. Like I said, historic events supports the fact that women can fight as well as men. Besides, allowing free willing women to be in combat roles reduces the chances of having unwilling men being drafted because the poll of potential volunteers have now significantly expanded.
If a woman can qualify expert on the M-16A4, lug an M240 plus ammo around, haul/ zero in/ fire a 60 mm mortar, and will sit in a fighting hole with her fellow squad members through all hell and not run, why not ? Semper Fi
Can she pass a male p.t.? thats the question. most women can not.
I agree most can not but for the few that can, why not ?
I do not see any reason to exclude the women who can meet the male physical standards and who want to fight from fighting. Why are you so invested in discrimination against the qualified?
I can and still do six years into my Army career. Now do us all a favor and shut your pie hole.
We know you can't.
Agree but 99.9% of women who weigh 120 lbs. can't carry 80 lbs. of gear all day evey day. No matter what their imagination tells them.
Those who can should be allowed to serve in combat roles.
Is that it? I have done most of that in just the past year. Come up with something better. And HOOAH!
I'm beginning to wonder if you're really even a woman, or just another liberal impersonator serving the cause.
No wonder the afghan national army is sad for the americans to leave. Finally they were going to get a chance to be "embedded" with the american ladies. 🙂 Too bad. " Oh Sgt. lashawna, Oh Sgt Juanita , Oh Capt. Yin and oh Sgt. Betty......"
I was out there with them. It wasn't a big deal. I put them in their place when they couldn't fire an M-4 worth a crap.
Thanks but there is no way for me to validate your vast military experience. and whats your first name ? I suspect you are a chick , since you have no sense of humor. And a hot one at that, as hot chicks have no sense of humor and have a boring personality.
This is liberal BS!!! Yes women are in combat, they are located out on the FOBs, and yes they may do presence patrols with the Infantry units (a 1-2 hour walk down the street). But at no time will they be able to load up with a 100lbs pack (Which includes our basic ammo load, demo, water, food, batteries, mission essential gear, and socks) (Not tampons, not shampoo, not undies/bras), perform a 20-30k movement through the Kunar of Afghanistan, having to endure multiple engagements (Movement to contact), and all doing this while on 30 plus day sustained missions (No heading in for refits to sh!t, shower, or shave legs). The sad part is every one supports this BS but when women can't even conduct physical fitness tests at the same standards as the men, how are they suppose to fight along side of them. If you've never served and I mean in the Infantry, then you have no damn idea. So when the good idea fairy slaps you across the face saying you should support this... Then this is when you need to sign up, volunteer for the Infantry AND THEN DEPLOY AS A GRUNT, then you'll be fully QUALIFIED to defend your argument! The military, especially the Infantry is not a damn social experiment. You know what, if a woman can perform at Ranger standards day in and day out, then cool I have no problem with it. But the moment she calls that time of month, then we hit her with Failure to Train disciplinary actions....
Once again, you have to jump to infantry to even start to have an argument against this. That has nothing to do with the myriad other positions. So though most women MAY not be up to infantry combat I am certain some are.
Point is that gender should not be the decision maker, just ability.
teh key word here is "combat"
I pass the male PT standards every time I take a PT test, you Marine puke. How about judging on ability rather than gender or is that level of cognition too diffucult for you? Now go continue reading your Jar Head magazine.
Just because you can pass a PFT does not mean that you can preform in combat. Last time I checked PFT only states if you are fit for duty and promotion. See I served as a 0331/machine gunner, and I am willing to bet that no woman could carry the amount of gear that we had to carry. Can you patrol for 7-10 clicks with 100 lbs of gear in the heat of the summer? How about having to do this exact same with one MRE every two or three days? What about if one of your fire team members goes down, can you carry him to a ccp that might be 100-200m away, oh and there is a good chance he is going to weigh 250 or better with his gear on? I have seen Marines who were 150lbs complete this task with ease. There is reason why we do stretcher runs in full gear for 3 miles, or fireman carry sprints for 200m. Could you go on a 25k with a pack and MK-19 or Ma deuce? What about do an ammo resupply 3 miles away with 110 lbs of 50 API-API-t? The infantry is not for women, given the physical demands that are needed. Now on the other hand, arty sure I can see it. Oh yeah by the way APFT is actually pretty easy. Just saying.
And by the way I have been deployed twice.
I see you didn't answer Chaos' points!
Dude, your little boys only club is going to end, whether you like it or not. Welcome to the future.
"The military, especially the Infantry is not a damn social experiment"
They said the same thing in the 40's about African-Americans.
So does this mean men can finally hit women?
As if that would be something new?
hey, thats an interesting point you bring up.
Yeah, we all know you are looking for any excuse to hit women. You already want to tell them what they are allowed to do.
I am not SF or any other combat MOS and I got my ass handed to me in combatives class, complete with a black eye. So there is nothing new here.
Of course as long as you don't mind when we hit back.
Well it certainly will eventually remove the taboo I imagine.
Women, should be allowed to be in combat jobs! You can make all the arguments you want to about the abilities of women in combat, the fact is there are many men, that should not be in combat situations let alone in the military. As for the comment about getting raped. What makes you think a man couldn't be raped? What makes you think men dont get emotional? Men like for women to remain week and helpless, but if a women makes the standard, maintains her own and perform like a man then there is NO reason for her to not be allowed to be in combat. I also find it funny when you hear the comments about women being distracting to men. So, with our new military, that allows gays in the military, doesnt that create a distraction? Hmmmm! What your saying is men have no self control.
I agree this is a stupid decision and time will show it. What kind of society puts precious women on the front lines? Next our children. I am certain that there are women who are capable to do the work, but they should only fight after all the men have died. What is left of the masculine role? Can we not even defend our women and children? No, that is somehow regressive, ignorant and intolerant. Men and women are differnt in many ways and both masculine and femine roles are vital to a healthy society. When we diminish or misplace these roles everyone suffers.
What kind of society? The kind that lets women do jobs that they want to do and are qualified to do.
How do we suffer? You obviously do not understand the passion and will it takes to want to stand up and fight for your country. To protect it and make sure your children and grandchildren have the same freedoms you have enjoyed. Why not a women? Do not assume that a women will not protect her country! She will stand up a protect it should she be asked to our choose to. I AM A WOMEN, I was a soldier, I am a spouse of a soldier and I am a mother of a soldier, I WOULD stand up and stand beside them to protect them and my country.
Good point, so the new rule is to not prohibit women from service based on gender alone. There is not the coercise rule for men i.e. selective service. Most women in the position to apply for these jobs would be career military folks. Thanks for the feedback.
"What kind of society puts precious women on the front lines?" Israel.
Robyn, I can't distinguish a gay person by looking at him but sure can distinguish a female! So your argument about a gay person distracting someone is not valid.
Sam, doesn't not mean the urges are not there and if they are openly gay, well you point is not valid. Not to mention, that in full combat uniform, no one should be distinguishable.
Robyn, thank you for your service and your families service however this is not a EO brief. There are certainly men in uniform that shouldn't be in their assigned MOS's due to lack of physical ability. There are certainly women that are capable of doing some of these jobs– but look at the bigger picture, as a soldier that is what everything is complied for. It is true that objectives of combat forces is to seek and kill enemy forces with ferocity and speed. What makes that machine run? Warrior ethos. What happens when women come into combat units? The fracture of the sacred warrior ethos that men have lived by for millenniums. To mix men and women in infantry roles is a mistake, it will destroy all necessary cohesion to kill the enemy and accomplish the mission in the fastest way possible.
I just don't agree with that, there comes a time when men have allow the warrior ethos to extend out to women whom feel they can contributed. If a women, can prove she is more than capable of performing and adding to the machine, then there should be no reason for men to feel threatened. A true female soldier would place all her focus on that sacred warrior ethos and face combat with speed alongside her fellow soldiers. I agree not every women would be capable of this and if she is smart she will make that self evaluation and not embarrass herself by trying to do something she can not, but if she can I see no reason why she shouldn't. My daughter joined the Army and she went through training to be a computer tech, she did not train to be in the infantry, nor did she request it. She went in knowing she was also training to be a warrior and should she be asked to go to war, she would go with no question. My point here is she was deployed to Afganistan and she endured mortar fire around her post, she carried a military rifle and she packed a 60 plus pack, and she was injuried and she continued until the very end and did not quit, just like a man would do. So, does she not deserve to be recognized for her contribution? Women are being place into combat already, without proper qualifications all the time. Why? Because she is a soldier and that's what soldiers do, no matter what the gender is. So, if there happens to be a women who can meet the same standard as a man and can carry a wounded man while still shooting her weapon, then let her do it.
I have stood by many male soldiers that have included me in the sacred warrior ethos, they were not threatened by me nor did they feel that I was a threat to their safety. I was a soldier and I acted like one, I earned there respect and if a women wants to be in combat then, she should have to prove she deserves to be there too and that would require her meeting that standard. I never have been a fan of the EO brief, it's never a issue of equality to me, just a strong will to stand up for her country and all that live in it.
CRAZY!!!! So goes the family unit even more. Confusion of roles. U.S., must look like barbarians to the African nations, which include the "Middle East," they claim to help.
There's also women who fly the most advanced fighters ever created. They have flown in combat for years. These women pilots have done very very well and no doubt women will do equally well in ground combat.
The only issue I see is that a female cannot handle as much physical demand as a male. This is the weight being carried...Unless of course they're juicing. This could be a fatal flaw in combat.
Military Uses drones now for combat.
A lot of these new combatants can expect emails from Gen. Allen !!!
I don't understand why woman would even want to serve in a military that does not respect or protect them. Thousands of woman in the military are raped every year and the military and government does nothing to stop it. Mainly they just cover it up.
Until this problem is dealt with, why would we fight with and for a country that make out that it is ok to be happening to us. Wake up, and don't join the military.
For the same reason that blacks (and many other non-whites) served in the military from the Civil War through WW2 and Korea ... Serving a country that treated them as second class citizens? Some of us answered a higher calling, putting service to country above petty actions and beliefs of bigoted citizenry. Too many have never served. Too many take the military for granted. Perhaps this country should go with conscription: every person serves the country in one form or another either immediatly out of High School or after getting a college degree. Wear the uniform before criticizing those of us that have or do.
War should be a last resort. This nation needs to change its thinking. We are so war-based that we are unable to see how it has brought us to our knees economically in the world. China does not have wars and yet they have managed to steal all of our money, our jobs and our resources without firing a bullet. That is because they have learned "The Art Of War", which is find the weakness and exploit it.
Tell it like it is!!! Great Post!!!
You obviously do not understand the passion and will it takes to want to stand up and fight for your country. What makes you think it's just an issue for women?
I remember being in the field for 2 weeks without a shower, just wetnaps and a canteen with washcloth. If she can accept and handle that at all times, then I have no real issues. I also would like to see an Infantry standard. X number of Pushups/situps and run as opposed to women/men standards.
Each combat role has its own physical requirements which is why they will each be individually evaluated. So many people here try to make the argument against by choosing only the most physically arduous roles in arguing against it. Many women are already successfully serving in roles that they have to step out of when combat ensues for no other reason than gender. That is a ridiculous waste of training and resources in addition to being incredibly disrespectful.
So i guess everyone has forgotten about how the whole country freaked out when the female Army PFC was captured a few years ago. How many elite operators were sent to get her? Would the response have been the same had that been a man?
The military pledges to never leave anyone behind.
You watch way too much TV. There are bodies all over Europe, Asia, and the Middle East that prove you wrong. The public outrage over a female hostage was huge! She was hailed a hero. You have no point.
Really? What haven't we not over reacted to?
The attack on our Embassy. Out of control government spending. How out of touch our government is with reality. Need I go on?
Really. We are that stupid.
I agree this is a stupid decision and time will show it. What kind of society puts precious women on the front lines? Next our children. I am certain that there are women who are capable to do the work, but they should only fight after all the men have died. What is left of the masculine role? Can we not even defend our women and children? No, that is somehow regressive, ignorant and intolerant. Men and women are differnt in many ways and both masculine and femine roles are vital to a healthy society. When we diminish or misplace these roles everyone suffers.
oh shut up, go back to the 1950s.
This decision only going to benefit a few women officers who want to "punch their ticket" in a combat unit so they can be eligible to command a combat brigade or division. You aren't going to see hoardes of enlisted women rushing to get into infantry and armor units.
I even read somewhere that they are going to open Ranger school to women, and that the cadre will only be able to fail a certain percentage of women, and the rest MUST pass. They will be giving away tabs for a few selfish women who are only concerned about their own careers.
Read what "WhatsYourOpinion" wrote. Ctrl+F that person and I think the last sentence is not true. Where did you read that cadres must pass a certain percentage of women in ranger school?
Oh please. And male Soldiers don't do this for the sake of their careers. I've got a Soldier right now who is trying to get SF just because he wants to get promoted faster.
You people actually took the bait. Do you think anything as actually changed? Here is a list of "combat roles" that have been opened up to women:
Chaplain
Chemical
Communications
Field Artillery
Intelligence
Logisitcs/Supply
Medical
Medical Service
Personnel
Physician's Assistant
Guess what, they have already been able to fill those position. The only thing that has changed is the level at which they can serve. Guess what! They've been doing it for at least the last 10 years already. This is a political buffet and you all are filling your plates. Good job!! My faith in my follow Americans has been further deminished.
Chaplain, Chemical,Communications, Intelligence, Logisitcs/Supply, Medical Medical, Service Personnel, and Physician's Assistant are all Combat Support or Combat Service Support. Field Artillery is not open to women but Air and Missile Defense is. When they say combat role, they mean by opening up Combat MOS's.
Please be advised that most of these Taliban and Al Queda insurgents have seen American films or TV shows like Baywatch. They are all celebrating about this fantastic news coming from the US miltary. They are all waiting out in the battlefields for these Amercan hotties so they can finally make their fantasies a reality, a "cop a feel" on those beautiful luscious American breast!
They are going to be disappointed.
Dead or alive ,they will still get to cop that feel.
Women's lib is now complete...but it will never be the same as men. All a woman has to do to leave the battle field is get pregnant, and they use that tactic all the time to get out of duty...served 4 years and witnessed it.
Then those women should have to be held to standard. If your on the front line then you have to accept all limitations, to include getting pregnant. It's shameful that women use that as an excuse to get out. Especially if done on purpose. It gives those women that truly are dedicated a BAD name. There are many things a man can do to get out of combat too, don't assume its only women, were there's a will, there's a way.
So I guess everyone that agrees with putting women in the front line for combat also agree that when all women turn 18 they must sign up for the draft, just like men do. Equal rights, right?
Here is something else to think about. Go down to your local high school and find a girl that is a Senior and about to graduate. Now imagine this person back to back with you with a rifle defending your life. Feel confident? Or the flip side of the analogy is that now, you are taked with defending her life....and yours. Feel confident?
Than again, gun fodder is gun fodder. In the end, they are both dead.
How about we do away with that antiquated selective service? And you're right. We're raising our daughters to be coddled, stupid, vain robots.
Why do you suppose we have a selective service? If we got rid of it how would we fill the ranks in a war where volunteers weren't enough to fill the ranks? Or do you honestly believe we will never again go to war? If so... why not get rid of the military!
Frankly, I wouldn't have trusted most of the male high school seniors in my graduating class with a paintball gun, much less a real firearm and my life. One or two particularly mature and competent ones, sure... and one or two mature and competent females as well. The rest of the class, regardless of gender? Heck no.
For those of us that came of age after the 1980s, seeing female firefighters and paramedics has become commonplace. But that wasn't always true. In the 1970s, my sister in law, (then known as Judy Livers – you can Google it) became the first paid female firefighter and first paid female paramedic in the United States. The objections were many: women can't lift the equipment, women can't carry people out of burning buildings, women can't sleep where the men sleep, men won't want to depend on women working next to them to fight the fire. She overcame every obstacle – she showed she could do everything the men did. She retired over 20 years later as Batallion Commander in Arlington Virginia and her uniform hangs in the Virginia Firefighter Museum. Not every woman – nor every man – is suited to every job. Distinction should be made on ability, not gender.
Well said.
Then let's make that distinction by ability. Right now fitness standards for men and women in the military are very different – it should be all or nothing. Right now in terms of legislation it's much better to be woman having all the freedoms of choosing to join the service without the requirement to sign up for the draft.
This is a great answer. If women can pass the same physical requirements the men can, I see no reason why they can't be on the battlefield.
Very well said and I commend her for her service
Thank you Sheila, I 100% agree.
Have any of you ever been in the military? Led soldiers in the military? Led soldiers in combat? This isn't a qualifications test... There are women who can do the job, there's no point arguing that I agree. The missing argument here is the impact this change will have on those combat units and the ability of those units to close with and kill the enemy. If you honestly think there will be no negative impact and no distractions from adding women to some of these roles then I question your ability to think rationally and honestly. This isn't a "get over it" kind of change. This is a big deal and done too quickly or improperly will cost lives.
Thats what they said about integrating African Americans into the military.
Sheila, I agree. As long as women can pass the "same" tests then let them fight. Currently, military fitness tests have different standards for men and women. They should have to pass the same tests for combat MOS's or you will be diminishing their capabilities. There are women out there that can easily pass those tests, but they should be the only ones let in to those roles.
Sheila there is no comparison between a fireman in a fire station and an Infantry squad in the field. There will always be that one woman that can do the job, but it's not the norm where combat arms are concerned. I have overseen details of both men and women while in the military and whenever hard physical work was involved it took almost double the number women to do the same work as it did men. That's not a fantasy that is reality as I experienced it personally.
In Vietnam, the enemy used women as snipers. Women are known to be better shots–or at least that was what I was told by a bunch of big burley CID agents many years ago when they invited me to target practice and I hit the heart area 5 out of 6 times. So the military should use women where they excel. I don’t care how much iron a woman can pump, physically our bodies are different than men in more than a few obvious ways.
The word is – we are getting softer by a day. Limp-wristed and fat. Gay and female. Heck, we can always send in some drones. Who needs feet on the ground?
Females should have to register for the draft as well.
They want to be men? SIGN EM UP! They can shot at like men do. They all want the benefits of being a man then along with that comes the same responsibility. No exceptions.
The people that are fighting for these equal rights are well beyond the serving age. They are basically throwing the younger generations under the bus, who just might not have the same thoughts they do.
Whoever is fighting for these rights should be made to serve. If they use the excuse, well its for younger people that have voiced a conern to me.. well then bring them in and make them the first ones to fill these roles... crickets will be heard.
I think it will take us seeing the dead, raped, battered, and beaten body of a female infantry soldier being dragged through the streets of some third world battle zone to realize just how ridiculous this idea is. Do we really want to put our women in direct situations where they are house to house and hand to hand fighting enemies who have no regard for women to begin with?
This, to me, is just another "feel good" left-wing policy looking to gain more political clout than to actually strengthen our military. What a joke!
A dead female dosn't look any better than a dead man.
Like my dad always said. " You wanted it.... YOU GOT IT!" Now deal with it.
Women serving in the military have been asking for this for a long time. Yes, it will be hard to deal with some of the consequences but it is the right thing to do. Women in the military, especially the army and marines want to be able to achieve the top ranks and without combat availability and experience it simply is not possible.
You sound like it is all partisan when it isn't Maybe you should try looking at it from a non political point of view. Not everyone makes decisions in their lives based on politics. The only people that do that are conservatives who check in with party headquarters on a regular basis to make sure they are not violating some sort of party rule.
Since warfare changed from open field combat against standing armies to anti insurgency against terrorists, women have already been in combat. The only difference is that now they get credit for what they are already doing.
Well said. And that's just part of it.
I hate seeing any American soldier being dragged through the streets after being killed- it has nothing to do with gender. And- news flash- men get raped in wartime too...As a female war veteran, I am fully in favor of women serving in combat roles...why not? Women have already been faced with combat situations and women have served as police officers for years- it's not a huge leap. If men have issues with it, that's their hangup. It has nothing to do with whether women will be able to serve competently. Knowing the army as I do, they wouldn't be making the transition if they hadn't fully studied the issue and decided it is doable. Men who shriek about women in combat probably feel their sense of masculinity somehow threatened by the idea.
Queen Boudica.
If a bunch of Celts (far more masculine than 90% of the men today) can follow a woman in combat, there is no reason we can't accept a woman in combat.
If you can meet all standards (physical and otherwise) without any special accommodation then fine. However, the combat that the majority of women have been exposed to involved defensive operations. Combat arms soldiers look for the enemy to engage them and kill them. That is not what the majority of women are doing now.
Boibby, in fact, there are more men raped in the military than women. Look it up.
Will women have to shave their heads like men for Infantry training at Benning, or will men who wish to have longer hair at least have the option of putting it in a pony tail like women?
The stuff about men having to have short hair for "gas masks" or to prevent the enemy from puling your hair is a joke. It's a double standard with women being allowed to have longer hair while men are forced to look like concentration camp victims.
Well, it's easier to deal with a lice infestation if your hair is short!
Nope, they will be able to keep their lovely hair
Look at Israel! their women are serving in combat so the US women can do the same I am sure. Besides, this would help to grow our Government payroll. What is another few hundert billion anyway.
Not sure how this will pan out, but I'm sure these ladies will be professionals. I know I would shave my head if I don't want lice.
Don;t worry, just because they are invited they won't necessarily come (maybe in bed with a guy).
Your an idiot!!!!
As a veteran I feel there are a small percentage of females who could do the job and I do mean a very small percentage. I know many people are going to come on here and comment on this with no knowledge of war or how a combat arms unit works but in order for this to work these things need to happen.
1.) physical testing requirements are the same for everyone.
2.) there should not be separate facilities
3.) any references and regulation regarding gender, thus any potential lawsuits must be stricken.
4.) Any and all media reports must treat everyone the same, no references, stories, spotlights etc.. on women.
5.) Pregnancies are NOT allowed if the unit is in a deployment window, and if the soldier does get pregnant and is unable to deploy they are then discharged from the army honorably if it is warranted.
6.) Force women to enroll in the selected service.
True Larry, and I agree with most of what you say however the largest of issues is how women and men behave together in barracks, exercise, or on missions. Having been in the Army the most offensive actions are when military members act like teenagers when they are assigned in mixed units. This is the most difficult thing with mixed barracks.
then you have to instill discipline, and harsh actions for those who have improper relationships
Ok Bill, how will that apply to our gay military?
I agree. There must be equal standards for those in combat roles.
100% agree! I have no problem so long as they have the same AFPT requirements as we do, go through OSUT in a mixed gender unit, and earn the right to be in the MOS both physically and mentally.
i agree with it all but number 5. some women may just get pregnant to avoid the deployment and take an honorable which will pay out benefits. that being said, i would be in favor of an other then honorable, or a general discharge. that way it really encourages the use of protection. people shouldnt be rewarded honorable discharge for early termination unless wounded in action or work place injury.
Larry I served in the military for many years and whenever there are young men and women together there will be inappropriate behavior. I've seen a fair share of careers go down the toilet as a result. It's a natural attraction and it will never change. As for the pregnancy thing... We had a support unit that could not deploy on time because a large number of the females got pregnant right before it was time to deploy. As a result the Army had to pull males from other units to augment that support unit.
What stupid thing will these appointed idiots do next to destroy our military – oh, I know, lets make it ok for males soldiers in unifrom to openly kiss each other. When the military has to conform to bad behavior rather than the soldiers having to conform to strict military code of conduct – we are done as powerful force.
Spoken like one that has never worn the uniform, much less done anything for the country. It's all about YOU, isn't it, Buckwheat? P'taK ...
Women should be allowed to serve in combat role or in any job that men are allowed. Women can perform the same military tasks as men. There's another important reason to allow women in combat roles. The all-volunteer military is having recruitment problems. When there was no war, many young people considered military service a viable option. But now that there is possibility you may have to fight & face combat hazard, fewer people want to join the military. The US military needs new recruits and opending all positions to women & gays helps the military find qualified recruits.
So I guess everyone that agrees with putting women in the front line for combat also agree that when all women turn 18 they must sign up for the draft, just like men do. Equal rights, right?
Here is something else to think about. Go down to your local high school and find a girl that is a Senior and about to graduate. Now imagine this person back to back with you with a rifle defending your life. Feel confident? Or the flip side of the analogy is that now, you are taked with defending her life....and yours. Feel confident?
Ok, So how many teenage boys can you apply that too. I certainly wouldn't feel safe with 99% of then either. Lack of common sense, respect, motivation, structure, honor and the list goes on. Think about it!
Can they? Can they hump a 70 lb ruck for 20 miles with a fully loaded rifle? Can they drag a 200 lb, wounded man out of the line of fire. If they can do it, fine, but absolutely NO "gender based requirements".
Our most senior generals are basically political appoiintees and as such will not buck the system. A system that is more concerned with making everyone feel included and good about themselves. In order to please their leadership they will make whatever adjustments to training standards, etc, and in a high intensity conflict people will die as a result but no one will ever put two and two together.
With all that said... There are a lot of very courageous women that serve with great honor, but opening up direct combat roles the purpose of which is to engage, to include physically, the enemy and kill them is not the way to go. Read the description for the 11B Military Occupational Speciality.
Sure, in theory women can perform all military tasks, but biology says that men will always be the superior warriors. Germany has had their SF units open to women since 2001, but not one has passed the physical test
1) Women can not perform the same tasks as men. This is already shown by the different physical requirements in place.
2) The military is not having recruitment issues. The military is currently reducing its active duty service members.
3) The war is winding down. The military is not having trouble finding people that want to join, in fact all branches have increased their standards and are turning people away.
Yes...because men and women are physically mirrored...
There is no recruiting problem and gays have always served in the military. In the past they couldn't do so openly, but they have always served.
Please make note that there is absolutely no crying allowed in a middle of a fire fight!
The women are a formidable force – they will smother their enemy with their breasts!
I really hope your not a soldier, you would be to busy making inappropriate comments to humor yourself.
TRUST ME, YOU DONT WANT TO PUT FEMALES IN A GRUNT UNIT, FOR SEVERAL REASONS. PLEASE LETS LEAVE THE FIGHTING TO THE MEN. HEAVEN KNOWS
Our military is getting to be mainly gay and female. The Taliban must be laughing!
Even though many women would call you comment "misogynistic" you do have a point. As we get weaker and more politically correct hiding behind drones and modern equipment they grow stronger.
Really? You know how the Taliban think b/c you've been intimately involved in their activities? I would imagine the Taliban would be horrified they just got killed by female or gay US soldier. How humiliating for them. While we're at it, dead Taliban bodies should be buried with pigs. Let them enjoy their 72 virgins w/ swine in their heaven.
Yes, laughing very hard when one or the other shoots them.
No wonder the afghan national army is sad for the americans to leave. Finally they were going to get a chance to be "embedded" with the american ladies. 🙂 Too bad. " Oh Sgt. lashawna, Oh Sgt Juanita , Oh Capt. Yin and oh Sgt. Betty......"
The word is – we are getting softer by a day. Limp-wristed and fat.
If a Muslim is killed by a woman, he will not go to the paradise. The talibanes will try to avoid the women soldiers.
One of them wasn't laughing when my female battle buddy waxed his ass down rage.
A one-time shot is NOT considered combination. Nor does simply shooting a weapon prove she has ANYTHING required to be infantry!
COMBAT! I have to stop typing so fast in my fury haha. You anger me with your ignorance Sgt Wilson
Its amazing to me all the women in here popping off at the mouth, having something to say about anything. Sure they want to be considered equal, but want only THEIR opinions to matter. Insulting a combat vet because he doesnt believe what YOU believe or because he doesnt support the same ideas that you do is not only disgusting but its why you arent considered an equal at all.
I have been in the Army almost seven years and have been deployed twice and I am more than qualified to share an opinion on this.
It's not a matter of insulting a vet, it's a matter of respecting what is being asked and considered. It's that kind of thinking and control that women are dealing with. You are imposing your own opinion and have not witnessed every single women and her own ability to stand her ground in combat. She may surprise you.
The roles might be open...Dont expect a flood of women to fill them though. When I was in they spent most of their time on maternity leave, knees wrapped, light duty.
That's exactly what I'm afraid of. I served as a grunt in the Marine Corps (0341) so I never really worked directly with females unless they were driving us someplace or maybe at supply or something like that and even with easy P.O.G. jobs like that many of those ladies were on light duty so I can't imagine what it will be like in a infantry unit.
Then if you haven't worked with them, then you don't know how capable WE are.
I know how incapable YOU are because I HAVE seen it!
All those women who work in motor T and supply are putting their lives in danger in order to make sure you get where you need to get to and that you have your beans and bullets necessary to take on the enemy. When the convoys are attacked or ambushed, or the supply location is attacked or overrun, what do you prefer the women to do? Run and hide, or stand and fight. Not only do they fight, they contribute to the holding of positions and saving lives by contributing to the fire power of the unit. Some of die and some of them are captured. They are already in the combat zone, so why are we tripping. Many African Americans fought and died on Iwo Jima, but it will be hard to find that in the history books because their official jobs were limited to transportation and supply. I say let them serve in the fields that they can qualify for.
True story! I think women have a purpose I just don't believe it's in the infantry. Leave us alone idiots who have never served!
Very true.. But truth is not what feminist want to hear.
@john, I served in the army and I have personally witness many of my men doing the same thing, and if they could of claimed they were pregnant they would have.
I don't know why we are wasting money and time fighting in all these third-world countries.
Except to protect certain financial interests, and I guarantee, none of us little people are making a killing being the "policeman to the world".
Personally, I would rather our brave men AND women protect our country, at home, for once. We have enough crime at home.
As long as they pass the same physical standard, use the same bathrooms, the same showers so special accommodations have to made I'm all for it. A soldier is a soldier once you are out in the field. If a female can hack it, so be it. I had a good deal of respect for the females in the Navy once they figured out I wasn't going to carry that 50 bag of supplies because they batted their eyelashes. They are capable but need to be put in the same units in basic training, those that can cut it will. Those that cannot will quit and will not be a liability.
LOL! Ok I understand you were in the NAVY and all but your understanding of the Marine Corps and Army is slightly warped. I was infantry and served in the Marine Corps, you don't learn all your infantry skills in boot camp so an integrated recruit training isn't really the sole answer here. Boot Camp for me was the easiest thing I did in the Corps (SOI "School of Infantr" was much harder physically)10-15 miles humps with just an M-16, rucksack and other light gear was easy in boot camp even with the hot humid weather in SC in comparison to 30 mile humps out in the fleet with double the weight humped in basic training on my back and than follow that up with a week long field op full of patrols, night shoots, and mortar position digging. Me asking a female Marine in my gun team to carry the 35 lbs mortar tube on top of the other 80 or 90 lbs of other gear she is carrying is much different than asking a female Sailor to lift a 50 lbs bag or something like that. As a 175 lbs male who was benching well over 300 lbs and was in tip top shape endurance wise the daily grind of being a grunt was still a lot of stress on my body. I'm not saying their are no women than can do these things but as a former grunt that knows the ins and outs of that job I know their are going to be some major issues coming from this.
Exactly. I was Army Infantry. Sand Hill is an entirely different world that "basic". They get an 8 week boot with jogging and short marches. 14 weeks minimum in infantry school, and then unit training. The drill sergeants are from regular ole MOS'. Infantry school, the instructors are all Ranger qualified, Spec Ops, Snipers, etc. Completely different.
There isn't a draft. You ignoramous.
YET, you ignoramous! I'm sure the ladies out there will want to consider ALL the details when their lives are "on the line"!
There may not be a draft NOW but selective service is meant for the possibility of a draft! Women are not required to sign up for...equal?
Great point.
I hope this comes with women being forced to sign up for selective service.
Do you see obama's daughters signing up for a draft ?
Or the Bush twins? Giggling all the way?
I agree wholeheartedly! Even women who are not physically capable of serving in combat are certainly capable of serving in a service or service support role.
The draft is a societal decision. combat roles are an internal military decision.
Completely different with no direct relation.
Also note that women already serve in many positions quite well and are then pushed out when it comes to combat. Pilots, naval commanders, etc. There are MANY combat roles that do not include infantry. And some women can match many infantrymen.
It should be on a per person basis, no need to bring in gender.
Partner you obviously don't have a clue. The draft is a societal issue (as you put it) only in so far as we have low intensity conflicts that don't consume massive numbers of human lives. If we ever (hopefully that will never happen again, but it is doubtful) end up in another high intensity war that results in the deaths of droves of our soldiers a volunteer force will not be sufficient to keep up and you will see a draft implemented. It is not by accident that we still have the selective service system. And as for gender neutral politically correct comments... Complete nonsense! In case you haven't noticed there are significant physiological differences between men and women. Yes, once in a while you will run into a real female stud that can keep up with an Infantry soldier, but I assure you that is not the norm. Women are exposed to combat in primarily defensive roles because they have to defend themselves like evey soldier, but are not currentlynassigned to jobs the primary purpose of which is to seek out, close with and kill the enemy. Yes, there is a difference.
I think many of you focused on the infantry combat role. If you ask an infantry soldier, he's the only one who goes into combat. Broaden your minds for a second. How about the Navy ship commander who had commanded the ship that fired tomahawk missiles. That's a combat. Unfortunately she was transferred to a desk and her XO got to go launch tomahawks instead. How about women Apache helicopter pilots? Fighter Pilots? Military Police? There are many roles woman take and excel in training and peacetime and it transfers over and shows during conflict. If you trust your battle buddy knows how to do their job well there wont be a problem.
It's like in WWII, women flew planes & even taught pilots how to fly. Women built tanks, planes & other war equipment @ home, but yet we had to wait to the 70's for women to be accepted in the production lines. It's time to let the women who are in roles that see combat be allowed to continue their roles. If new positions (i.e. subs, ships, ground fighting specific) open up let the have the opportunity. That's what this country is all about.
I praise & grieve at loss of any life knowing they freely gave theirs for mine, regardless of who they were / are or will be. Give them the opportunity to do what many of us have done, and are doing. That in itself is all anyone can ask.
I also find it interesting that those who speak loudest are those who never wore a uniform. For those in uniform, there are many jobs that aren't "combat" labeled that see combat. Murphy's Law, life sucks, embrace the suck.
After serving 12 years as an enlisted troop, I went to school, did ROTC, and went back in as an officer. My wife, whom I met on active duty, did the same. New Butter Bars are assigned additional duties and one of my additional duty was funeral detail. The hardest funeral I did was in 2002. I had to present the flag to the husband of an AF pilot who was killed in action; they were my wife's and my age. All I envisioned was my wife in that casket instead of his.
Basically, men are starting to understand how the wives have felt for generations.....
There are no easy funerals....
This I think is important. Men are much more effected by harm to females than they'll ever be by harm to males. But you have to understand that your discomfort is not more important than that female soldier getting every opportunity in her career that makes sense for her to have.
In the army, MP is a combat support role. Combat roles are infantry (11 series), Artillery (13 series), Special Forces (18 series), Air Defense (14 series), Armor (19 series). Also, for the Navy, the Surface Warfare Officer NUPOC program is open both to men and women.
All good comments, but how do we move from women having an "option" to serve in combat to "required" to serve in combat. In naval aviation, USA aviation and the USAF, the answer has been addressed during the last ten years as you noted. But how do we address the land forces, whose mission is different than flying or driving ships?
Should the guiding thought be exceptional women only serve in combat position, or all women should serve in combat positions?
US Government=Comedy Central
They can start their own elite group like the SEALs... but they can call themselves the Navy TUNAs
Sound interesting. Women in combat. When the war dies down, drop the drawers and go at it. Then back to war! How to make combat interesting
Certainly this is no place for a woman.
This is the case of politicians finally waking up to what is really happening. Women have been in combat for at very least the last 10 years. There are no "front lines" in Afghanistan and were none in Iraq. Bullets, IEDs, or any other device that goes boom do not discriminate. Women have been Logisticians, MPs, pilots, and in other support jobs with the Infantry and SF for years – it's just politicians are finally acknowledging it. Women have been killed and captured. The unfortunate truth is that we do need women in these roles because more women are signing up for the military then men. If the public does not like it, pull Johnny off momma's teet and tell him to man up. Otherwise, for the rest of America and politicians, welcome to the way it has been in the military for at least the last 10 years.
I would only rebut one point here. Where is your source for the statement about more women signing up than men?
DoD keep statistics. To save time, attached is a website you can visit: http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/apa/Index.htm. You will need to do some clicking to find each year's statistics but this is an example of only the Army. The AF and Navy (includes MC) have their own websites.
Thank you for telling it like it truly is
Once females are held to the same standards as the rest of us, I'll quit complaining.
Bad idea.
Reading these comments reminds me of my father - Chief Master Sargent in the Air Force - ridiculing the women entering the service 40 years ago: "It takes 4 women to do the work of 2 men on the flight line..." Well, here's the thing, men have physical limits just like women and when a task exceeds those male limits, machines do the job or teams tackle big jobs.
Accommodations can be made in many cases to mitigate the relatively small gap between male and female physical abilities. And as for field exercises, why can't women carry a lighter rifle? Carry less food and water (they eat less anyway)? Why can't radios be made lighter? Etc, etc...
There is no good reason why strong and courageous women should not serve in combat roles. Where there are jobs based SOLELY on physical capabilites, then exclude those (men and women) that can't perform to an acceptable level. But not because the soldier is female.
One more thing. You guys with your hangups about women's menstrual cycle...first you need to grow up, you sound like a bunch of middle schoolers. Second, men wipe their butts, right? That's some nasty waste generated by bodily functions...just like a woman's period. Menstrual cycles are NOT a legitimate argument here.
Sorry Sarah, as soon as you said "so what if they can't meet the same physical standards, we could make some accommodations for them" you proved the point of all of us who don't want them here.
Better hope they don't get captured, wherever they may be. The point is women can get pregnant, and most men are straight. That pretty much sums it up.
Birth control. It comes in a shot now you know. Besides, women have been bearing children from rapes for time out of mind. You really think a woman who goes into combat doesn't know the risks? A lot of current soldiers are being raped by OUR OWN TROOPS. Yea, we get it. Men might rape, because that's just how you are.
If a woman wants to become a soldier and is physically capable, why not let her? Every soldier, man or woman, gay or straight, accepts their duty and knows the risk (at least I hope they do). Female soldiers know the risks of going into combat, and they accept that. Do people just ignore the fact that male POWs are raped as well, or do people really believe that doesn't happen? Every soldier is put at risk, and they all know that. Death does not discriminate.
All they're doing is acknowledging modern warfare. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no rear areas as in previous wars like WW2. Everyone is at risk, no matter where they are. As the article points out, woman are already assigned to combat units:, they're just not getting credit for it.
Wait so Camp Leatherneck isn't considered "in the rear" if you don't think so you've either never been there or never left there.
Well, Women always wanted to be equal,,,,To heres your chance.....Isnt that why you sighed up in the first place????
want to kill human-been do abortion on yourself
This issue is not about GI Jane fighting shoulder to shoulder with men in a combat situation. This is primarily about career women officers and enlisted, who need to have "held" certain "combat" and leadership job descriptions in order to advance in rank. It's called getting your ticket punched on your career path. This ruling allows women a better opportunity to be promoted along side their men counterparts!
So you're saying let's put women in combat roles just for promotion purposes and not put them in the field after wasting money on training?
No, we're saying let's stop holding women who have keen tactical minds back and start to advance our military into the next age of combat readiness.
Pretty much. They'll see "combat", but they'll never really see any combat.
That is just prattling nonsense.
In a way, I don't know why we bother debating this. People are set in their opinions, and won't let a little thing like FACTS or REALITY change their minds.
More of the expanded World War to benefit banks and corporations while they send the poor out to die. This is the real reason they want our guns. They are afraid the American People are realizing our vote and our thoughts dont matter, only lobbyists banks and corporations who fund our corrupt politicians do.
The real war will come not in the Middle East, or even on the Mexican border itll come against the Federal Reserve, and the wallstreet banks who robbed us during the bailout. If youre reading this you are the resistance.
you're
I guess with women in combat,we dont have to treat them like ladies anymore because they are now the same as men,too bad
must you hijack the conversation in order to inject 5tup1D? If you have a problem with the ladies, then go shack up with a dude and zip it
Oh,so your the decider on who says what here ?
i think this is a bad idea....especally in the infantry......every chick will be inpregnated during deployment...EVERY.. not to mention i went 58 days with no shower or running water. femminine hygene will be a problem. good thing they left that loophole.....i can say i honestly believe that ALL infantry and special forces groups will be closed to women......ps guy on guy action dosent happen to all who think it does.
Whole bunch of broad sweeping generalizations there...NONE grounded in fact.
How about BS on your part, its stated in fact because we lived this life day in day out. We are the Infantry and have done the dirty work. Yes women are in combat, they are located out on the FOBs, and yes they may do presence patrols with the Infantry units (a 1-2 hour walk down the street). But at no time will they be able to load up with a 100lbs pack (Which includes our basic ammo load, demo, water, food, batteries, mission essential gear, and socks) (Not tampons, not shampoo, not undies/bras), perform a 20-30k movement through the Kunar of Afghanistan, having to endure multiple engagements (Movement to contact), and all doing this while on 30 plus day sustained missions (No heading in for refits to sh!t, shower, or shave legs). The sad part is every one supports this BS but when women can't even conduct physical fitness tests at the same standards as the men, how are they suppose to fight along side of them. If you've never served and I mean in the Infantry, then you have no damn idea. So when the good idea fairy slaps you across the face saying you should support this... Then this is when you need to sign up, volunteer for the Infantry AND THEN DEPLOY AS A GRUNT, then you'll be fully QUALIFIED to defend your argument! The military, especially the Infantry is not a damn social experiment. You know what, if a woman can perform at Ranger standards day in and day out, then cool I have no problem with it. But the moment she calls that time of month, then we hit her with Failure to Train disciplinary actions....
Why is it that men always think that women have to be pretty, dainty things who have to shave their legs everyday and immediately stop working when it "that time of the month." I'm pretty sure those little things would not get in the way. If a female can do the same job at the same standards as men, then I don't understand the problem. Many claim seeing women injured and killed would be worse, however, women have been seeing men injured and killed for thousands of years, it isn't a different situation- seeing anyone killed is going to be heartwrenching. As for pregnancy and rape- I doubt any woman going into the military hasn't come to terms with the possibility and decided that serving outweighs that fear. Why not allow QUALIFIED women the chance- you will likely be pleasantly surprised that not all women are the dainty little flowers you have described them to be.
Thanks for clearing that up about guy on guy action. It's good to know you aren't gay. Really. I'm glad you let us know that you definintely aren't gay.
Also, you do know that one of the first things a female soldier is given access to is birth control, right? Right??
Your ignorance is showing.
go ahead,send your mother and sister to the mideast,you bbrave brave man
You think birth control is a military issue item to females? It's not given out like candy
you dude are a fricken idiot... and you are gay cause you had to emphasize on the fact so hard... this is why the military is retarded and i hate being a nco in the army. cause of stupid soldiers like you.
Interesting. When I was an Infantry company commander in Baghdad, we had 5 females on our combat outpost. Our best platoon leader was a female MP lieutenant, who saw more than her share of combat and excelled. None of the females became pregnant over the 13 months we were there. And we actually did have two males engaged in some "action", plus any that I didn't find out about. Any more asinine statements to be debunked?
Wonan in the infantry. It's about time. "You've come a long way, baby...". So now we are getting this "equality" business on the road at last. And the ladies can die along with the men, countless opportunities in these wars without end...
Dying is the easy part. The hard part is losing your limbs, being burned, blinded, and PTSD. Oh, and knowing your fellow soldier died because of the modified physical requirements allowed people not qualified into combat.
Women. Get out now while you still have a chance at a family. And if you have kids, get out now before you make them orphans or worst, leave them for another woman to raise with your man.
Why on earth do you think that every woman's goal is a family? Humankind could do with a little less procreating.
Actually the human race, at its current birth rates, will die off in the next Millennium. Go educate yourself.
ajking981 – Are you on drugs? Even Stephen Hawking admits that if we continue at the same exponential growth rate, we will be standing shoulder to shoulder by 2600.
Women in combat? Hmm.. This one is not really floating well with me, on one side if the standards of fitness and competence are not compromised I can role with it. All the talk about a women's feminine hygiene care is not really relevant. I think these ladies know that they need to be prepared for their cycles and the other issues that they may face out in field. These things need to be brought up but not the central focus, the focus should be that the physical and mental standards NOT be compromised for ANYONE. ALL should be held to the same rigorous standards as the other.
Looks like there are enough disposable women sitting at home getting pregnant. They might as well do something with their lives.
What happens when it is that time of the month & there is no place to shower/wash-up? Will women be required to maintain a very very short haircut, which will require a regulation change? What happens when a female is the "only" female in the unit? I am sure that many women are happy with this decision, but just as many women are unhappy with this decision. Will the assignments be mandatory? I understand women want to be treated equal in uniform, but what happens when that female cannot carry their full weight? Will a male counterpart offer to help or leave her behind? There are many questions surrounding this decision.
All of these questions have already been asked. Stop focusing on a monthly cycle as if there are no options. We live in 2013. All a woman has to do is go get a shot and she is set for a 6 month operation.
Aside from that, what do you think happens when a man can't carry his weight in the field? Do his comrades leave him behind because he's too weak, or do they help carry the load because "no man gets left behind"?
Do you really think that men never falter in the field?
Cutting the defense budget by 50% and reinstating the draft for any deployment over 40,000 troops would 1) immediately balance our budget and pay off our national debt in eight years, 2) even at 50%, we'd still be the largest most powerful military force on Earth, 3) allow resources freed to rebuild America's collapsing infrastructure that would create 90,000,000 new, well paying jobs, 4) returning us to our status as the most prosperous and secure nation in the free world...
A conscript army is virtually worthless compared to a professional force like we have now. Thats common knowledge to anyone with any knowledge of military practices...
First, we are NOT the largest Army in the world (China, India, N. Korea) then US. So cutting the defense budget by 50% would reduce manpower to the US to being incapable of responding with any decisive capability should it be required. Now, requiring and collecting taxes on the 47% of people that DON'T pay would provide a HUGE windfall for the coffers.
As we debate the short term implications of women serving in combat positions, I want to focus on the long term implications of the “womening” of our all volunteer force. In the end, the impending changes may do more harm to the advancement of women in the military then good.
I celebrate the opening of all combats positions to women. I believe every able-bodied American with the required character who wishes to serve their country should be able to do so. My question is simply, should service in combat be an option or a requirement? I believe it should be a requirement. Hence, as the majority of men recruited in the military are destined to combat positions, now the majority of women recruited for service should be destined for combat positions too. If such is the case, would this requirement affect the number of women recruited into the military and who successfully complete training?
In addition, should women be required to enroll in the draft as every 18 year old male?
I think the answer to both is yes. So how do we now require women to serve in combat verse celebrating the “option” of serving in combat?
In my opinion you are absolutely correct. Having now gained the right to serve in combat women should now have the obligation to register for Selective Service (Draft) and be required to join combat arms positions in equally higher numbers as the males are, afterall we wouldn't want it to appear that we are being unfair in allowing women to shirk their newly won responsibility (equal right) to fight and die in the mud against our enemies... come on in!
These people might not have a schwally....but they sure aren't "women".
When you are taken hostage in some middle eastern muslim toilet country, tortured and raped before your beheading. Hillary and Obama will say "At this point does it really matter? "
Thanks for sharing your twisted fantasies here on CNN
Now go clean yourself up.
Honestly, how is it any different from the millions of women currently held hostage in their own homes, being brutally beaten and raped by men they are supposed to be able to trust? At least after service she'd get a medal.
Personally I think if you can do the job you should be allowed to but as a nation are we ready to hear how are wifes mothers daughters and sisters were treated as POWs
Why not? We already hear how hey are treated as wives, daughters, and strangers on the streets. Or do you think rape, torture and terror is something that only happens in a small, dark country on the other side of the map?
What I don't understand is why it's any different for a woman to be injured/killed than for a man. Women have been losing men they care about since wars started. Is it because there is a historical precedent that some how make it better? The pain women feel when losing a male loved one in combat is just the same as what a man would feel losing a woman in the same context.
I bet a lot of the people that want this have never even served one day in the military. I just dont want to hear the crying and moaning when things hit the fan on the battlefield. There is no love given out there. Just hope that none of them get captured, you know the story after that. Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it.
Um, they are already on the "battlefield" and have already been captured. Is there a point here?
Yeah, maybe one or two. When I was in a unit overseas, we moved to another post that happened to have women on it. Our Battalion Commander briefed us on how we were to act since there would be women around. In other words, we couldn't offend them. If these women need special accommodations in order not to be "offended", they probably don't belong in the military, much less on the battlefield.
Wholly concur, Jorge.
The real issue is what happens when females get marked lower than their male counterparts on performance evals? Its going to happen. Combat arms is physical, so performance evals will be heavily weighted on physical performance. Not to mention a woman will have to forego having children the entire time they serve. 9 months pregnant, 6 months maternity in a job field where you could be deployed at any time? Seems like a stretch to implement.
I'm all for women in combat. Be careful what you wish for because you might actually have to hump a pack. Require selective service registration and have the same physical standards across the board.
well this is fun...but its really simple. Societies are based on roles and societal norms. No matter what the feminatzis say. That is how societies survive. One of the males job in a society is to protect, fight, work, kill the enemy...testosterone....now women roles are to nurture the family, take care of the home, support the male...estrogen. Of course lefty loon libs consider this blasphamous (no i cant spell). ...just another nail in the coffin of what use to make america great...thank you democrats!!!
Really? You really feel that way? Have you ever met a female soldier who has been in combat?
As a combat veteran in Afghanistan and Iraq I think this is great for women however, as a male in a combat situation I know I'm always going to go above and beyond to protect a female soldier over a male. It's a natural instinct and I think most soldiers would relate, of course you want to protect yourself and your squad (male or female) but natural instincts tell you to protect the female. I am an advocate for women getting all the equal treatment that they deserve but I think it's going to be crucial that the reports to these chiefs are accurate and transparent.
If what you say is true that only makes YOU weak and I wouldn't want to deploy with you...you shouldn't be in combat if you would protect one over another.
This might just be the only thing Obama has ever done that I agree with. Equal rights menas equal rights. Including the right to fight, be a prisoner of war or be injured or die. Now if women can develop the uper bidy musle streangth required to carry all the gear then march on. If they cannot then they will be dead. THen all teh liberals will shout out against the Idea.
Spent 12 years as a Marine and I'm all for it if done with equality. Combat Arms is a tough world. I've seen men who can't hack it and women who could if given the chance. I think it would have to be on a volunteer basis so you start with those women more inclined to the life of packing heavy gear and living dirty. There is a logistics hurdle that will have to be dealt with and that comes from the current rules for segregated billeting. An infantry company in a staging area requires 5 big tents to hold everyone. Current rules would add another of those big tents for just one woman. We have to get past the issue of potentially seeing each other naked if we are going to really go out and fight together.
Very well said. It is refreshing to hear from a man with combat experience who has an open mind about this issue.
Based on Panetta's goal of giving all Americans "equal opportunity" to serve in combat units, here are my suggestions:
– Require all young women to register for Selective Service when they turn 18.
– Require the same physical standards for women to qualify for combat units as their male counterparts, and don't lower the standards so that both genders can meet them.
– Young men are sometimes involuntarily selected to serve in combat units. The same standard must apply to all young women who serve.
If Panetta and the Obama administration are intent on creating genuine equal opportunity to serve in combat, then they would surely agree that these steps must apply to that process.
Involuntarily put women in combat arms and expect them to meet the same male standards will retard female promotions.
WOmen: Does it occcur to you for just a second that you might have been tricked?
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.
Yea? What about Justin Bieber? Don't see him rushing off to try to hack it as a green beret.
Are we saying that every woman is cut out to be a soldier? No, we aren't. We are saying "ok, women have been pretty successful in the positions we have them in now, let's see what happens if we open more opportunities for them."
Get over it.
Justin Bieber is Canadian, so he won't be serving in the U.S. military any time soon.
As much as you enjoy telling others to "get their facts straight"....maybe you should take a dose of your own medicine souljacker.....justing beiber is of CANADIAN citizenship.
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.
You raised an interesting point, if valid (I am not bothering to check). Assuming it's valid, then yes, it could affect child bearing capacity for women in combat, but it's their choice. There also women opting for corporate rather than family.
Female atheletes maintain lower percentages of body fat as do some other women. We don't stop women from being atheletes. Why stop them from being in combat. If women can take the physical challenge then let us. Ever seen GI jane?? Or what about Serena and Venus Williams?
Okay...let's talk about GI Jane. What did the female Doc tell Lt. O'Neil, played by Demi Moore? "her body fat falls below normal and she ceases to menstruate" And typical values for elite athletes are 6% to 12% for men and 12% to 20% for women. My point is if men drops to 6-12%, I will guess women will drop around the same percentage which will affect their organ functions, which can cause injuries or death.
We want equal rights, except when we don't!
Since all men do not think alike it is fair to assume that not all women think alike. Your clear hatred of women is your own personal problem.
Look, why tear down your countrywomen because they have other responsibilities that preclude them from going full throttle combat? The fact is childbearing is our responsibility to further our species. You should be grateful and proud of our women who want to support our men in combat.
We want equal treatment at all times.... except when it's not awesome!
What makes me sick are these married couples who deploy and leave their children for someone else to raise. These mothers need to stay home and raise their children instead of going away to play soldier. If we weren't involved in everyone else's business all the time, these women would be home. No, I may be the farthest thing from a feminist, but I also believe in peace. Yeah, I remember 9/11, but that war is over, right?
Yeah, because soldiers have a say in when and where they deploy. (rolls eyes)
Women have been getting deployed for a while now even before the combat jobs open up. They can't help the fact that when they and their husband are deployed at the same time leaving their children. Some women feel it is their right to serve. However with combat jobs being now open to women I believe that in a household where both husband and wife serve one should go and not the other at any given time especially if they are both tied to a combat unit.
Are you serious? I must say im not the biggest fan of all this but your comment is ridiculous. I have plenty of dual military couples as friends and they dont like the idea of both of them deploying at the same time either but they know its their job and they do it with honor. But if thats the way you feel, how about you be the one to stay at home and take care of the kids by yourself for a year, and let your wife deploy since your comment is all about the kids. But you wont because you're a feminest.
If the women can go through the same basic training regiment, and I mean the same, with 100 pound packs, no girly push-ups, and can carry a 200 pound guy who is lying on the ground wounded, back to the medics. Then sure, why should men be the only cannon fodder. I for sure would not be all to eager to be dealing out death. But as long as they can go through the exact same regiment of training, then what do I care.
Why not give females the equal rights to be in full combat? Provided that any individual can pass muster with the physical expectations, he/she should be given the right to put their lives on the line in service to the country. Females should have an equal right to die for their country too. I am still waiting for the feminists to demand 18 year old females be required to register for the draft (or face a felony for failure to do so), just like it is for males. Strangely, they have remained silent on this issue....
Actually they haven' been silent. But it is not relevant to the discussion at hand. The draft is a societal question. Women in combat is an internal personnel question for the military.
All those people with assault rifles. Do the anti gun people lknow about this?
Imagine in a middle of a fire fight in Fallujah, a commanding officer orders his platoon of women to take out a machine gun nest or directing them to assault a house knowing full well there are deeply entrenched insurgents waiting for American soldiers to barge in. I hope it doesn't happen.
Don't worry, it won't...
A platoon of women??? One lucky commanding officer! I'm so jelly!
On the *OTHER HAND*, WOMEN OUT-NUMBER MEN in the U.S. now. Therefore, let them "equal out" the traditional "bullet-catching" men who are boots on the field–after all, this means "better equality" (in a *different way, of course) for men and women in the U.S. ...