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
Women who are strong enough to carry a 100 pound ruck, lift and carry a 200 pound man, etc do exist. They're rare, but they're out there. If Gunnery Sergeant Big Bertha wants to go infantry and can pass all of her quals, let her.
My fear is the standards will be compromised so that the average woman can join, not just the occasional, unusual woman who actually is strong enough.
there are many men physically less capable than average woman.
yep, and those many men do not meet the physical requirements and are unable to enlist in the armed forces.
Yes – there are men who are less capable than women. As someone else has also pointed out – they are not in combat arms. The key point is consistent standards related to the requirements of the job.
I was an infantryman and a cavalry scout in a previous life. Combat is not just about the physical aspects – it is also about mental toughness – the ability to improvise, adapt and overcome your enemy while swimming in a river of your fellow soldier's blood and brains – all the while protecting civilians in the line of fire. It is equal parts sociopathic and empathetic sensibilities – and I am surprised more veterans don't end up with mental problems from being immersed in it.
There are few men who have what it takes, and fewer still women. For the few, of any gender, I have no problem with them protecting this nation through their service in combat arms. My worry is that overall standards will be lowered in order to fill quotas – which will undermine the capabilities of our armed forces.
At the present time we have an all volunteer Army and military. If some major conflict, with much larger force requirements changes that and we have to re-instate the draft, this means young women will be drafted from civilian life into combat roles whether they want to or not. As a combat veteran I'd like to say "be careful of what you wish for ladies".
It is about time. Russian women in ww2 were great snipers. It doesn`t take much to pull a trigger.
Great point mark 5. One Russian sniper killed 306 German soldiers including 24 German snipers. She survived the war. Also, women served as fighter pilots. If a woman wants to serve in a combat role, she should be allowed to.
This will give a whole new meaning when the 1st Sgt tells the company to fall out for a hump.
Last I checked, the military is still voluntary.
So, I'm pretty sure only women who feel they have what it takes to join the military will join.
So there is no need to worry or have guilt over any woman who voluntarily wants to put her life in harms way.
It's obvious you've not been in the military.
Just because they volunteer and feel they can do it DOES NOT mean they can
Reading these comments leaves me quite dispirited, since I realize we as a society have not progressed as much as we thought, nor learned from the examples in the past. Most people against this change are so due to ignorance, prejudice, personal feelings they believe should be forced on others, completely irrelevant issues, etc. They are ignoring the reality of today, and can't discuss the issue on its own merits. Sadly enough, many are the old guard (retired military etc).
How depressing.
– An 100% P&T disabled female veteran
I concur....I am frustrated, saddened and disheartened to read the comments posted here. As a female military officer, I firmly believe that military jobs (as ALL jobs) should be filled by those most qualified to do the task....Set the standards, allow all to test against them, and take only those that qualify. All the way from sniper to tanker to pilot to nurse to load master to platoon leader....Use ALL of the talents of our ALL of our people..Those that have a problem with gender integration need to take a page from those that learned racial integration (which also appeared insurmountable at the time to certain populations). Examine your paradigms people and progress beyond them! Thank you for your service and your sacrifice.
Exactly II am astonished to read some of the comments here. Just didn't expect this kind of narrow insecure mentality even here in United States.
Although some commenters here are just plain old knuckle dragging relics, there are some valid points being made. It's a fact that having women on the battlefield presents some disturbing and unique issues. Imagine the woman caught by the Taliban:animals with NO observation for the rules of engagement. This woman is not just any POW, she's a trophy and will be raped, tortured and likely killed by them. Now let's also think about the woman with kids, should she be able to risk her life and possibly leave her kids motherless? Finally, it's a simple fact that women (most of them) do not have the same strength as a man. This can undermine the unit in endless possibilities.
Equality is great but this is one instance maybe we don't need equality as much as we need common sense.
hello, open your eyes. There are many kids in our society right now without Moms or Dads or both. Men also can get raped and tortured.
Astounded- I have repeatedly addressed you (and similar comments) below. Not only have women shown that they can carry, but men have just as valid a problem carrying which is why they teach alternative methods. Additionally, your argument about young children applies to men as well.
With a name like 2feisty4u, it's sad that your sense of maturity hasn't progressed much either.
Pls use the grey matter if you can on the topic and arguments, rather than juvenile attacks on the person. You are acting in the way you describe, which makes you a hypocrite.
Re: my name, I earned it as a sign of respect from the guys I worked with on a flightline overseas in the 90s when I was the only female (and a redhead) on it. I will wear it with pride, something you would understand if you ever served in such a situation.
With a name like "Get back in the kitchen" it's a wonder you can turn a computer on let alone type your silly drivel. Must be a quiet night at the trailer park tonight huh? Not much to do except insult a woman who'd probably kick the snot out of you.
The military is ultimately run by politicians. Politicians are run by the people. The people have access to video and imagery from the front lines, and its often brutal. The people question "why are we at war?", bring our soldiers back. They influence the politicians, the politicians in turn change the military strategy. The enemy know this.
Seeing male soldiers killed, brutalised, tortured, executed already sways public opinion and the course of war, but it pales in comparison to the impact of seeing the same happen to the countires daughters. The enemy will develop new tactics to exploit this. They will target and abduct female soldiers, and publicise the brutality on Al Jazeera. They will break the back of public opinion, and the public will further influence the course of war – potentially to its own deficit. There is simply no stomach for any more loss – there is enough depression already. We cant afford a nation paralized by PTSD and yet war is sometimes necessary.
Consider a war with China. Unfortunately for us, their communist rule affords them the ability to both field female, front line soldiers (though they don't need to) and to exploit the weakness of US public opinion (democracy). That is unlikely to end well.
Fielding female font line soldiers in expeditionary wars will thus, be a catastrophe. The only potential exception being wars with a very clear, defensive goal, such as world war 2 or defence of an invasion.
– I'm a returned, front line, special forces soldier. I have no doubt women are capable mentally and physically.
Excellent points.
Rendl- it's just as affecting when we see videos of our men being tortured. Gender is irrelevant to the level of horror and atrocity. Will society have a difficult time initially? Of course. Will we adapt? Yes, just ask the Israelis. If we let the social aspect stop us from doing what's right, Hitler would own Europe and the U.S. military would not have integrated blacks and women.
– Thank you for your service!
If women can meet the standards both physically and mentally, then why not? As long as they are not dragging their unit down and can care for themselves and their unit, I see no reason to keep them from it. Our current laws require men to register for the draft in case of a potential large-scale conflict when they turn 18, regardless of if they can handle combat. So why keep a woman who is qualified from it when we have so many out of shape men registering for something that they have no business doing either? As far as being protective, men are just as protective of their fellow soldiers. Never leave a man behind? That involves guys risking their lives to save other men. Medal of Honor recipients have typically done something reckless for the sake of their comrades. When its saving other men, its called heroic, but when it involves saving women, its suddenly them being protective and rash? As far as people having served being some kind of expert on the matter, please note that since most haven't actually been in combat with a female, their so -called knowledge on the matter doesn't make a difference since they have no hard facts and only more opinion. I find it really interesting that women are always cast as emotional frail creatures when, in this argument at least, it is men using their own emotion as reason to keep women out.
As long as they can pass all the same tests (no modifications or lower standards) then fine. But if a woman with young children is crazy/selfish enough to want to do combat then we need a stipulation in place that prevents women with kids from joining. Risking your life if you have kids isn't heroic–it's selfish!
astounded- guess it's "selfish" of a man with kids to serve too, right?
We already have guidance in place for parents. Single parents, (male or female) are restricted from entering. Dual military must have child care arrangements (family plans) in place. Placing women in combat roles does not change this....women deploy now to combat areas.....they are just not the ones pulling the triggers (in most cases). I have deployed to situations where the shell casings from the Apaches were falling off of the roof of my hut as they were shooting....and I am a female and a mother. We are responsible Americans, mothers, fathers, family members. We believe in defending our country for our children and their children.
Yes, I think it is. Just ask any 7 year old who goes months and months with no father. Daddy is not there for birthdays, Christmases, hockey games etc etc. it's unfair to a child to have a parent in the service. And especially unfair for a child's mother to play Russian roulette with her life and leave her children motherless. It's not heroic, it's selfish.
Kashidog, I feel sorry for your kids. Your loyalty should be to your children first. We aren't fighting wars where our freedoms at stake. Wars these days are manufactured by politicians for ulterior motives under the guise of fighting "terrorism" Bushes "war on terror" a perfect example. Invaded Iraq on the premise of WMD's that didn't exist..
Anyways, how many birthdays, special occasions etc etc have you missed serving? Lots probably. I'll bet your kids really missed you. I bet you missed a lot of them growing up. I bet you probably regret that deep down. Parents have no business in the army. Kids need full time parents. They need stability and consistenve
Astounded- if we used your logic, we would have the worst military in the world. People would join young and get out when they had kids, leaving us with no experienced leaders.
Additionally, why should a single soldier fight for the married soldier's family? Who has the real stake in keeping America free?
I disagree with your statement that it's selfish; in fact, you're teaching your child about values, self sacrifice, and what truly matters. You're telling your child you love them enough to die for them, so they don't have to live in a country like Pakistan or Syria. Perspective is everything.
by your logic, men with kids shouldn't serve either. which means we would have a pathetic military.
which, in turn, would mean you wouldn't live in a free country and be able to enjoy your life with your kids either... you're just full of contradiction, aren't you?
Good luck to the soldier who finds himself wounded and needing carried out by the "soldier" next to him.
The heart may be willing, but how many women can shoulder a 200lb man?
This will surely weaken our military
Yeah there are several different techniques to get a wounded soldier off the battlefield. Anyone that is a part of the military and went through basic training would know that.
any one of which will demand a generous amount of upper body strength.
unless you have a wheel barrow
Jim obviously you don't know much about the techniques.
You are correct in saying that there are numerous techniques. Buddy Carry, Firemans Carry, Walk, drag, bear crawl, etc. However, they do require a decent amount of strength regardless, or at the very least the endurance to continue the task. This is not even taking into account the body armor and kit.
I am not saying it is not doable, it is doable, but there needs to be unified standards and combat fitness tests to assess this. Physically speaking, from my experience and what I have seen, a woman weighing 130lbs struggles to accomplish the same physical tasks that a male at 130lbs is able to complete. Muscle is carried in different places. Again, not saying it is universal.
I support the opening of women into combat oriented roles (This is different than combat roles and combat support) however, there needs to be universal standards, not gender based standards.
How many guys can shoulder a 200 lb man? There are techniques and other methods of moving a body that the typical fireman carry. Ones that even small people, male or female, can manage.
I have no concerns with this if the women are held to the same exact basic training physical tests as the men are.......I doubt that will happen.
Which is what is happening. The military are reviewing everything, so I do not know why you are so worried.
I am not against women in combat, but I have a hard time believing that women are going to be held to the same standard. They don't even have the same boot camp or physical training requirements for a standard PFT. If women want to get into combat roles then they need to step up and prove the doubtful military members wrong by not just barely passing by, but decisively making it through all the same training as the men from start to finish.
Excuse me, but may I ask why you would put the word "Soldier" in quotes? Just because they are women does NOT mean they are not equally in harms way or equally a soldier. Just because women are different from men does NOT mean they can not do the same things as them. Lifting 200 lb. men included.
As a female service member, I can assure you that the majority of the males I have had to carry did not weigh 200 pounds and the one that did, no one was able to carry without additional assistance. In battle, there are several techniques to collect bodies, alive and dead. Females who meet the standards are just as capable of doing that as the males are, especially when adrenalin kicks in.
Thank you for your service.
While I'm torn on this matter. I do agree with you that their are some women in the military that can meet the challenge and their men in the military that can't. But if we are going to truly make it equal then it needs to be totally equal. If you require a man to carry a 80 ruck then the woman needs the same requirement. If your going to have different standards weather it be PT or other requirements then it's not equal. Also if your going to require by law that a male register for the selective service when they turn 18 then you also should require females to do so. Hey equal is equal, right. I know some say allowing this will only make the military soft. I disagree with them on that. I know this is off the subject, but I also feel all soldiers should be paid equal according to TIS and pay grade. They need to do away with the with dependent and without dependent difference in pay. I don't think a civilian employer or even the Federal Government pays a employee without dependents less then their fellow employees that have dependents. Base pay is equal, but BHA is not and also family sep pay. I know many soldier that will marry their best friend and never live with them just to get the extra pay.
A few key things need to happen in order to prevent the Military from Weakening and in order to ensure equality:
1) Women are required to sign up for selective Service. Same standard as men.
2) Same physical standards, no exceptions. That, or base the fitness test on the job. Infantry Must Meet X while Admin must meet Z. Not sure how well that would work though, but the fact is any deviation in fitness standards will weaken the units.
3) No Special Treatment. If your unit goes to the field for 2 weeks, then you are stuck. No special treatment for showers (Women in basic training were required to return to the barracks after a certain amount of time to shower while their male counterparts remained in the field – this is a report from female soldiers I know. I attended and served in all male units).
4) Need to have Combat Oriented PT Tests as well, and they need to be put into effect. There is a difference between Fitness and Combat Fitness.
5) No affirmative action or quotas. They either pass, or they don't. If they don't pass, too bad. If they can't meet the standards then we don't need them putting peoples lives in danger.
I understand that women have served in Combat Support Roles, and have been attached, key examples being Transportation or MP. However, there is a difference between being in a truck for 12hours (Concept of Death before Dismount depending on the mission; and yes I know there are different missions, but scouts and infantry have a significantly different job than the rest of the support roles) and being required to do a 8 hours foot patrol with the purpose of "Movement to Contact". Just because you returned fire from a turret or dismounted and returned fire from cover, does not mean you are capable or ready to endure the patrols and extended fire fights that some of these guys experience.
Fully agree!
Agree 100%
Absolutely
Totally agree! But one more–if you have kids of minor age then all bets are off. Mothers with young children shoud not be able to do it. A mother who chooses to risk her life isn't heroic, she's selfish. So I'd hope to see something preventing mothers of children from enlisting into combat positions. I have no issue with them doing behind the scenes work but a mom of small kids has no business on the battlefield. I'm sure her kids would agree that they'd rather not be orphaned.
once again, I guess men with small children shouldn't either, since it's equally "selfish".
Well stated brother.
Se have just become the weakest fight force in the world
Stop preaching. Women go through more than 36 hours of labor. Women naturally endure physically challenging jobs.
that has to be one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever seen. You think a woman's pelvic strength is going to help her in combat? You are a fool
Thanks Ugh- you said exactly what I was thinking... all of the Teen Moms gave birth... Snooki gave birth... my mom gave birth- hence, they all have the ability to be combat infantrymen!?
Labor does not equate to phsyical strength. There is a difference between Pain tolerance and Muscular Strength and Endurance.
At first women weren't allowed in military at all because they would "affect the mission capability and morale" of the male troops. Then they were allowed but not in areas/jobs that might witness combat because of the same silly reason. Now that female troops have proved they can do their jobs even when bullets are flying over their heads, the military is willing to give all troops equal responsibility along with the equal rights and privileges. It's about time. Classify, use and promote the troop based on abilities, not chromosomes.
You are correct.
Hear, hear! Well said. You either meet standards and performance expectations, or you don't. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Funny how when it comes to change, whether it be integrating blacks or women, there's always excuse after excuse which is eventually proven false.
Women do not have the same upper body strength and never will. The only way they will be equal on tests will be if the standards are lowered. That is the plain and simple truth.
mary- yes and no. Both men and women on the same fitness program, yes, the man will be inherently stronger. Not being equal on the test, no. Some work out harder than others. Standards do NOT have to be lowered- DoD did a study in the 90s showing that civilian women, after 6 weeks of moderate exercise, could meet the military male's minimum standard. Pls don't perpetuate misinformation.
And yet, military women, with months of military PT, cannot pass the basic male PT standard.... weird, huh?
Doesn't matter. Stop making excuses. Physical strength is not enough.
2fieisty4u you are correct they did do a study, they took a group of female soldiers and in six weeks got all of them up to at least the male minimum standards on the Army Physical Fitness Test but when they were sent back to there units with in six months of going back to a regular army work day and regular PT everyone of them failed there next test based on the male standards. If your going to quote study's don't just pick out the parts that fit your narrative. I was in the Army then and remember this very well and I am a leader in the Army now and I can tell you for a fact that most woman don't have the over all physical stamina to do the jobs they are about to try and open up.
Tim- actually, they did several studies including the one you mention, but the one I was referring to used civilians. I can send the link if need be.
However, you are missing the point of the study- women WERE able to meet the standards. You also prove my point about coddling military women- if their job, not a study, required it, they would have kept to those standards. It's no different than the slacker who waits until 3 months before their annual PT test to start exercising.
The bottom line is that they were able to meet standards. Keeping to it is a chronic problem for both genders unfortunately.
MRE's will now have kotex and other female products. i guess you can always you the pad for a pressure dressing???
To your point – tampons are frequently carried by black ops to use as an asorbant material. Of course, they're in the field and not sitting behind a keyboard playing badask...
Really?
Tell me more rumors that you've heard.
Awesome comeback, Joe got owned.
Having been flightline and supported specops, you would crack up at some of the odd things they carry. For example, almost all carry condoms since they are waterproof and can be used for many things.
Afghantzi- Don't consider it a rumor when I'm talking to the guys getting ready to board, and I see it first hand. (Made the mistake of thinking he was bluffing. Won't do that again.)
I gave you one hint, I'll tell you another. Rifle and elements.
Will military hair grooming policies be aligned to promote this new equality?
Military standards already contain gender specific guidelines....
it's 150 degrees, two weeks at a patrol base. What are you going to do with the little water you have rationed for the week to the base before higher sends a resupply? Wasting it to wash hair definitely isn't on the list.
I wonder how much this has to do with the fact that over 60% of Americans are Overweight or Obese, and this statistic is expected to continue to climb.
Basically, the military needs a larger pool of fit people from which to recruit.
TOO FAT TO SERVE:
http://www.cbsnews. DOT COM /8301-505263_162-57393115/too-fat-to-serve-military-wages-war-on-obesity/
There is no such thing as to fat to serve. I was big my age, but I joined the military and did better then half of the individuals who claimed they were fitter then most people.
Oh, so you were in the Navy. I see. Down in the bowels of some old ship mopping floors?
You wouldn't last 2 days at Paris Island, chubby.
Hey Bill no I joined the Army. I find it funny that you attack someone that has served in the military. It makes me doubt that you ever joined in any military branch in the United States.
Bills an accomplished keyboard warrior, lol.
A. of course there is such a thing as too fat to serve, really? is there an argument for that? Its okay for people to be naturally big, but come on lets face it bad eating habits and lack of GOOD exercise play a role for a lot of people claiming otherwise.
B. shut up about boot camp Bill, who cares! have you seen some of the people that make it through?... not impressed, also since you brought up boot camp I'm guessing your a POGUE so what do you care if women are in combat roles, you wont see them anyways.
Its all fun feminism until the
talibs post a youtube of a chick soldier getting raped. Even better, the leaked US drone video of the incident.
Folks in glass empires ought not fly drones.
Rome did not fall in a day.
I agree. Putting women on the front lines is a decision which this nation will come to regret. Politcal correctness run amok.
I agree 100%. Women do not belong in combat. I am a woman and think this is a horrible idea. Aside from being a target for crazy sick talibans, we can expect lots of motherless children. Bad enough lots of daddy's never make it back. The feminists can thank themselves when the brutal reality of thier "victory" is realized. It's a sad day.
Sorry....female military officer here....the loss of any of our soldiers, airmen or marines is sad. Both combat and non-combat positions should be filled based on the capabilities and talents of the individuals in relation to the task. Can a 5'2" male hump a 100lb pack as well as a 6'0" male? No...examine the specifics of the job....can a 5'2" female pull the trigger on a sniper rifle as well as a 6' male....absolutely. Examine the job. This is not a feminist/ traditionalist issue...this is a matter of our country utilizing ALL of the talents of its' citizens. Set the standards....test the individuals against the standards.....those that meet the standards, (regardless of gender) fill the jobs....simple. I am a military mother....I have been deployed 5 times. The loss of me as a mother is no greater than the loss of a soldier who is a father.
Retired military officer here... thanks for your service... we do need to examine the job... but, you use the example of a 5'2" sniper - sure, pulling the trigger is one thing... well, how did the female sniper infiltrate in and exfiltrate out? Did she bring in any gear? Ammo? Once she makes her shot, how rapidly does she move to her next position? Is she moving as fast as her spotter? Not trying to bust you out- I am just pointing out that even the easiest looking combat position is a largely physical exercise. Heck, even one of the first branches to get desegregated will likely be Field Artillery - well, the lightest gun is a 105mm, and each ammo case is 70 lbs, and each gun would have about 30-50 cases at their position... If the military keeps the same standards, that's one thing... but, every time they've made changes to accommodate society, they've lowered standards.
But your ok with fatherless children, how high and mighty of you.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko
Demi Moore played a Navy Seal. Wonder who will be the first real one?
to me its funny..that the us is tryin to enlist more soilders..when its airpower and nukes that decide the fate of all battles nowadays..imagine u.s can even combat iran now..a single nuke and alot of pple are dead..the days of " a million man army" are over..buildin a smatter smaller military shld b the top priority!
Women are a risk to any unit as they are not equivalent in stature or ability. Are there a few exceptions? Maybe, but the true numbers of capable women are not worth the distraction it is causing to try and implement this obvious political move. That a boy Panetta, just wait till you are leaving to do it!!! Typical political puppet.
Sure women can join army or airforce bc their standards are a joke. Fat ass army pog's. Leave the killing to the men and the Marines rah
Why would 'rape and pillage' be the province of men. Now women can have it too !
Sorry if it offends anyone but as a combat veteran women have no place on the front lines. Regardless if they meet the same quals. As men they will still be a target and men will protect them even if it means someone else getting killed or the mission failing. This is just an all around bad idea.
So because men can't control themselves women have to sit down and shut up?
It's a sad reality but the animals in third world countries don't observe rules of engagement. Women will be targetted, caught, raped and tortured. Then you can call her KIDS and let them know what happened to mommy.
Even if a few women can match the physical requirements (most cannot, simple fact) you'll have men having to risk thier lives to save the women from certain capture torture and/or death. They can't be expected to lift a 250 pound guy off the field and run with him. So whoevers depending on her to save him..well, let's just say there's going to be more funerals.
This is a bad idea! Political correctness gone too far, to the point of stupidity. Mothers risking thier lives isn't courageous, it's selfish. Women don't belong in combat period!!
So just because women want to get pregnant just before or during orders men should have to pick up the slack?
Fact One: Men get raped in the military. Fact Two: Men get raped by the enemy. Fact Three: It takes two people to have a child and it is not just a females responsibility so if "slack" is being picked up by a group of males or females due to the birth of a child, deal with it. Fact Four: That is life.
All is well on the battlefield.....until the rider on the red pony shows up, usually once a month.
wow what is wrong with people nowdays? how stupid can you be?? why are all sports teams male only?
A lot of women are crying over this today and as most Republicans believe, women do not deserve to have a choice in what they want to do. Republicans consider women 2d class people who should bow down to men and always do as they say. Republicans are USA's Taliban. They also would prefer Senior citizen forgo medical care, decline Social Security and just exit the earth as soon as possible. A sad group of people that as a disable war vet would spit in face of the Un American pieces of crap
Um....do you believe that female Republicans also see females as second class citizens? Your comments are that of a ranting person, not a thought filled and rational person. Get a grip and take in the entirety of the article: there were NO politics mentioned in it. Godspeed.
Speaking as a 100% disabled female vet...
About time! Women have already been in combat and proven themselves, contrary to what the peanut gallery is saying.
Regarding reflexes, DoD studies have proven trained women have FASTER reflexes and better hand-eye coordination. Additionally, fit women are built better for forced marches, even with gear. Regarding the knucklehead talking about women not being able to carry a man in combat, that's been disproven. Not to mention a lot of MEN can't either, not when carrying 75lb of their own gear! Why do you think they focus on teaching various drags and 2-man carries?
Ethically speaking, I always had a problem with the fact that men had to register with selective service and that men had to go to combat when I didn't. I'm not a feminist nor do I WANT to go to combat, (neither do most men!), but it didn't seem right that I put on the uniform just like them but got excused from our real mission of defending our country in combat just because of my gender. If we both put on the uniform, we both should share the same risk. That means both combat and the draft. EQUAL RIGHTS MEANS EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
We coddle our military women and that needs to stop. The DoD did studies back in the 90s showing that civilian females, after 6 weeks of moderate exercise, could meet the military male's minimum physical fitness standards. So there is no reason to have two sets of standards. For specops and combat jobs, they either meet the standard or they don't. Enough said.
For those arguing that kids need their moms, well guess what? Dads are needed too. Neither gender is more important than the other.
Lastly, don't forget that in some branches and some career fields, some women can't get promoted past a certain rank due to a lack of experience in the restricted fields.
Couldn't agree with you more.
There is nothing saying women are less capable, and if they can pass the same standards as men why should't they be allowed?
Well said. There are many women that are as capable as men. No reason they should be excluded.
Great post, we run a program for reintegration of female vets, would love to speak with you. Please email me thanks, Meg
I agree with 99% of what you are saying. Having said that, the role humans play in war, is much less suited for the female anatomy than it is for the male. Physically males are far superior to that of females and that aspect alone should mean exclusion. A very small percentage of females can make the basic requirements of most basic male marks. However, for the small percentage of females that can make it there is a different angle that has not been discussed yet. There was a study in the Israeli military that showed that men from an enemy unit were increasingly reluctant to surrender to women, often times fighting to the death. This results in a higher body count on both sides, when an all-male unit stood a much better chance of getting them to surrender. The male – female dynamic is apparent regardless of what side you are fighting for. When the enemy knows women are amongst the aggressors attacking at dawn, there morale sky rockets. A large part of any battle is lowering your enemy’s morale so that they can see that defeat is a distinct possibility. This is why snipers are so effective… So I agree men and women should be equal, it’s fair after all. Unfortunately, nothing is fair in war. I support the way it was…
EOD, I have to disagree that what you call the "social" aspect is a valid reason against women in combat. Historically, if we had accepted that, neither blacks or women would be in the service. Will there be difficulty integrating at first? Of course. However, as the old guard passes, the new gen will be used to this as the "norm", and less problems will occur.
I speak from personal experience. In the early 90s, I was assigned to a flightline overseas, and I was the only woman. We had a meeting, and before it started, the DO came up to me and asked me to make the coffee and "he was real happy the newcomer was a gal so we'd have good coffee finally". I didn't know where it was at or how to make it! Yet when I got out, the first question about a newcomer was not their gender, but what type of performer were they. What a difference!
well said. Looking at some comments, just can't believe how insecure men can become even in a 'so called' advanced country like USA. They don't sound very different from some of the countries that we view as backward in treating women. Men in those countries talk about all issues everyone is going to have as soon as when they have to send girls to schools. This is not a very different. These men have to stop thinking as if they are faultless superior humans. Here is an advice – stop comparing yourself to women to feel superior.
I completely agree with you. As a female service member, I also agree that the military coddles females-they will meet the standards if the standards are higher. Most importantly, thank you for your service and fighting for others who do not even believe you should have the right participate in defending freedom.
Thanks and to you as well.
This reminds me of the line "I fought for your freedom of speech, and THIS is what you're doing with it!?!". Lol
I don't think it's a rights issue so much as an ethical one. If you put on the uniform, you need to be prepared to sacrifice the same.
Just watch and hear the out cry when they come home in body backs with their young kids seeing a flag drapped coffin and no mother to wipe their noses and kiss their boo boos. Is it worth it to allow this to happen? If it becomes necessary to reinstate conscription (the draft) in a national emergency, are we going to draft a 95 lb 18 year old female to carry an 85lb pack in extreme conditions. Alls fair in love and war. How combat effective would this be?
Out of curiosity, what did Uncle Sam do when 95 lb. 18 year old boys got drafted into the military?
They would make him a clerk or some such.
Doubles rations and voila he gains 30-40 lbs of muscle throughout training. Most men can develop that fast, most women can't. Women have lower physical standards in the military hmmm I wonder why.
Do you know how many 95-110lb MEN there are??? Using your logic, let's have a more stringent min height and weight standard- for BOTH genders...
The bottom line is standards. The individual, regardless of gender, either meets it or not. Period.
Time for WWIII, 100 million draft.
sorry dude world war 111 would b fought over the skys nt land..nukes war
Most of these women in the military would make fools out of the right-wing Republicans and their gun-loving "militias".
These right-wing “militias” and “minutemen” are nothing but civilian organizations largely comprised of wannabe commandos, skin-heads and dipsh!t law-and-order types who join up for the paramilitary vibes, the testosterone-rich conviviality of meetings with other faux servicemen, and the patches and hats they get to wear. True !diots, the vast majority have never been out of the sight of their hometown trailer-park, or ever in any real danger….
Well said mama's boy. How much time in the military do you have?
Fukkin 15 years Special Ops.
If you're afraid of serving with women, you don't have to. The Army won't miss a beat with one less bigot to drag it down.
One does not have to be in the military to recognize the difference between a soldier and a yahoo. I work with a retired Marine Corp General and several other retired officers(Navy and Marine). My sister and Brother-in-Law are both retired Marine Corp officers. I have never served and do not pretend to have the personality for it. Unlike so many chicken-hawks in this country.
isn't that nice...15 years "spec ops". The great thing about the internet is that anyone can pretend to have a big d**k. Oh, and I personally shot OBL, so there.
Look, buddy, I was dropping into Danang while you were eating Cheerios out of your Nazi skin-head Dirk's ass. You shaving potatoes way in the back mess tent?
15 yrs Spec Ops – BS. You're a keyboard warrior and not particularly good.
Look there Cliff-Clavin, you one of those Corporals way in the back doing administrative tasks behind a desk? I hear you guys like wearing a glittery pearly white necklace.
Alright!!!! With so many more soldiers, its time to invade Canada...
Well, you know JackL, the definition of a Canadian is an unarmed American with healthcare. But if you really need to invade, come on up. You are welcome to Winnipeg or Edmonton in January, just so long as we can go to Orlando.
I like Tim Horton's. Plus we have our defense industries to support. Canada is a logical choice – Spock would say so. 😉
This is ok....IF and ONLY if it is the EXACT same PT and entry standard. You need to know that the soldier or marine next to you can pick you up and pull you to safety if you get hit, and that he/she will be able to lift/carry whatever everyone else needs to lift/carry so the fire-team/squad/platoon/company doesn't suffer because of her/his weakness.
Fine by me, if the standards are the same for both men and woman, and the woman can pull her weight, so to speak, let her in. My wife shoots good enough to make cops look over and give her a quick nod! But she couldn't haul 20 lbs more than about 20 feet! If the woman call compete with the soldier on equal ground, far as I'm concerned, she can roll over Taliban with the best of um.
iit is not about competing with fellow soldier. It is about service. Stop comparing yourself with women. Learn to include and work with women. They are your fellow citizens.
make women do the same standard as men then we wont have a problem. problem is that they cant and they will lower the standards so they can pass. the military is weak!
wow your idiocy shows itself with every post you make. do you have any valid point to keep women from the front line or do you just have excuses?
Pointing out the fact that most women don't have the physical strength to ensure they aren't a burden on the front lines is idiocy?
Yea real idiocy. Women's physical standards are lower in the military right now.
@Veritas if thats the only excuse to keep women from the front line then yes it is idiocy.
You are also physically weaker than two men. Your thinking is weak. Actually military is going to be stronger.
there will be no more elite units in the military anymore. allowing a female that has to only do 18 pushups in the unit is laughable. china is laughing right now!!!
the mighty 7th Cavalry is going from Garry Owen to Mary Owen. aggghhh!!!!
........jan Brewer................we have a job for you............................
As so ends the age where women were exempt from the draft.
wait till a female gets captured then we will think hard about this
Already happened
who was this woman???! i hope you are not referring to jessica lynch as what ACTUALLY occured is totally opposite from what the media reported.
Major Rhonda Cornum, for one. Her helicopter was shot down trying to rescue another pilot. She had two broken arms and a bullet wound, was kept in an Iraqi jail, and was raped by an Iraqi soldier. She describes the rape as the "least" of the things that were done to her. This happened way back in the 90's, and somehow the U.S military still exists! No men threw the mission to the wayside trying to rescue her. She was handled the exact same way as any other POW situation.
There are many more; google is your friend. Female POWs and MIA already exist, and you're very naive that's not the case. It's crazy how many posters on this board seem so up in arms about changes to the military but have no clue what's already happening in the military.
They really should issue suicide pills to our soldiers. I sure as hell wouldn't want to get captured in most of the countries where we fight.
Option 1) Have my head slowly cut off by a dull knife.
Option 2) Quick painless death with cyanide
I go with option 2! and I'm a guy. Thinking girls may have a worse deal.
Suicide Pills? Are you nuts? We have training to get out of those kind of scenarios.
none of your business. You are not here to protect women. Stop feeling the need to control what women should do and should not do.
equal is same PT standards and no special treatment. this will make our combat forces weak. hopefully my 75th ranger regiment will stay off limits to females
If they can pass the actual exact same standards as the men, why shouldn't they be allowed? I think for these kind of roles though they should have to pass the exact same standards, Ruck marches with 80lbs of gear, all the push-ups sit-ups and pull-ups too. If they can't do that they can't be expected to live up to whats currently required of the Men in the field and that puts the mission at risk.
already happened multiple times....what's your next dumb argument?
I just saw what a E5 makes in the Army. They won't have to worry about me serving, the pay could not cover my monthly hair and nail cost. Let the men go and die.
"Let the men go and die?" So you can go get your precious hair done? Feel pretty good about that hair don't ya MAMA?
Got to look good for the men who decided not to serve. Plus that pay really indicates the value we put on people serving in the military. Treating them like school teachers.
You should try donating some of that money to charity. As an E-3 right now, I make ~2800 a month living off base. If you're spending that much on your hair your priorities are all messed up.
So what do you tell the other MEN in your platoon that we had to wait for the stargler trying to keep up with a 60lbs ruck sack on? Should we just wait? Or is this soft America going to alter the trng so it adheres to women trng with men?
this is simply a political move and little thought was put in this. when they see the drop out rate for females, then they will rethink this
"little thought". That alone shows how little you know about this topic.
girls in combat???? 10 days without showers and they will all have yeast infections.
I think women can figure out a way to keep clean and fresh. She'll have to spend more time trying to keep fellow soldiers from trying to take the goods.
I'm ashamed of the Americans who say the pledge, use our money and land, and live under the law that proclaims every Americans' EQUAL, unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness who denounce women in combat. If women want to stand up and fight for YOUR rights and protection, they deserve to. Women are as physically capable as men. People serving in our military do not go through months, even years of training and boot camps for nothing. If a someone fails the tests to serve, they will not fight in combat whether male or female. Women are capable if you give them the chance. Either way, support or denouncement, American opinion will build women's cause and determination to prove their patriotism and skill.
you obviously have never been in the military or can comprehend any asspect of the matter so please sit on the sidelines and watch as you have been for many years now.
Hey Taylor, your next shift at McDonalds starts soon. Better run off and go make fries like a good little girl.
Is anyone thinking about how this will effect all of the women serving in the armed forces that DO NOT wish to be put into combat positions? Certainly we are all aware that even though we have an all volunteer military, not all of those currently serving in combat positions choose to be there. So with the inclusion of women who choose to serve in combat we are including ALL female service members to the possibility of being non-vol into those jobs. This possibility may deter some women from continuing military careers and may deter some from considering military service at all.
If a woman puts on the uniform, she accepts the same risk as a man. She will either meet standards, or not. Period.
you men in here that agree have no balls and have never served in a combat unit or special ops unit. so your opinion doesnt count
Rangers aren't special ops bro. try again light infantryman.
Actually, Rangers are under Special Ops Command.
While rangers may not be true blue special forces, they fall under USSOCOM command, and are listed as SOC (Special Operations Capable). they are an Elite Infantry unit.
Shut your hole. Rangers lead the way.
terrific.... now i bet MRE's will come with kotex and other female products. (sigh).
I hope this forces our Military and Government to start respecting the Geneva Convention. We need to force other nations and non-goverment armies, guerrillas, terrorist groups to respect the Geneva Convention so our Combat Women are protected if they fall as POW. As a powerful Army we need to give the example and avoid the barbary of RAPE as a war weapon. If other do, they lose the Legal and Moral grounds, if we do, we end at the same level of those we consider lower or uncivilized enemies, We should also force our Allies, as Israel, to respect the Geneva Convention.
Wouldn't it be better and simpler to just do our best to keep them out of harms way? It's really naive to expect all warring parties to follow rules. IT'S WAR!
so to us not follow the G. Convention? This is the real reason behind this deist ion.... from CNN itself http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/
Scissor squad, ten-hut!
Right-shoulder, maxi-pads!
Are there really enough lesbians in the US to fill out even one infantry division?
as per lesbians in the army, the bull or butch (male) is good as she/he can fight but the "Willamena Woo Woo" (girly-girl) has no business in the army as once she breaks a fingernail or gets dirty she will have an emotional breakdown and start crying and pouting. the butch is ok but definetly not the girly-girl.
One more step to a more vicious and callous society. The suicide rate for male returning vets is high; what do you think combat conditions will do to females?
Do we really need or want combat conditioned women?
I was on a battleship during Fleet Week,and there were a TON of females.Alot of the security gurads came from the shup and they were holding large machine-guns.Doesnt that count?If theiy work on ships?Battleships,frigates,and crusiers?
other countries women are way rougher than our lazy, out of shape, pampered, american women. everyone knows this
what will happen in the canteen? It's a boys club,and lots of lewd things happen?Will she complain and be a tattle-tail.These situations help to calm down eachother,but if the female is all sensitive,then the whole team becomes overly stressed and can't focus on their new mission.
people that make these dum ideas have no clue what combat is. the soldiers that have been know and think this is a bad idea
I'm laughing at all the people so upset about this, or who think it is some huge change.
News flash: there are already millions of female soldiers "attached" to direct combat units. Do you know what that word "attached" means in the military? It means that for all practical purposes, you're part of the unit. You do all of the same things they do. You're just logged differently as a way of ducking the legal requirements. This has been going on since the war began.
Nothing is actually changing except the paperwork.
Both are a mistake.
Speaking as someone who has completed CMRT (Combat Medical Readiness Training), George is absolutely correct.
Ignominious- since you feel its wrong, guess you don't want medical aid on the field if only a female is available? That's ridiculous- when it happens, you won't care about my gender, you'll just want my help.
Yep, plenty of women to do the paperwork...as that is what they are good at.
Human Resources paperwork rangers are usually guys. Medical fields are where most of the women are to be found.
FINALLY the U.S. joins the 21st century. I know of several women who are just downright scary! I'd be running from them if I were the Taliban!
Joe- I was active before and after 9/11. Let me tell you, some of the gals seemed more ticked off than guys. Some deployed and saw how the women were treated, and wanted to go BACK. Yeah, I'd be scared if I was the Taliban. Can you imagine how one of those a$$h0le$ would feel getting it from one of our women? Poetic justice, I tell you.
Has anyone explained how or why Israel has been successful with having women serving in combat units. (Without making a racist comment)
define "successful". They still only do light infantry and for a fraction of the time their male counterparts do.
Israelis live under a constant state of threat. They are a violent people by their very nature.
Really?
Don't take my answer the wrong way. I still think this is a good move. The IDF mostly starts filling positions from the bottom with women freeing up the men for actual fighting. It's only been recently that they have moved women further up the line simply because they don't have that many people to begin with. The US military applied this strategy somewhat in WWII, enlisting women in huge numbers to work supply, maintenence, clerk, etc to free up men to fight. But when that war was over they simply booted all the women they begged to volunteer and shoved them back into the kitchen pretending that they never served their country.
isreal soilders dnt serve far away from home thats why
There is only one infantry battalion in the IDF (Karakal) in which women are allowed to serve... This battalion has never yet taken part in combat.. I wonder why..
I don't know why people are acting as though women in combat are anything new. Women have always contributed in every war historically, not just in this country but over centuries in countless others, as well. Both as warriors, nurses, and other important roles. Archaeologists dig up ancient female skeletons buried with their weapons, many Native American tribes had female warriors, women dressed as men in the Civil War to fight, lest we forget Joan of Arc leading troops to major victories... Just because historical school textbooks have decided not to teach little boys and girls of women's contributions in war (and other areas) doesn't mean it hasn't been part of life on this planet for eons. This is America, 2013. No big deal.
I'll be impressed when women have to sign up for Selective Service. Until then, this is just posturing.
You said what I was going to say!
All physical standards need to be the same for everyone now. An ammo can, artillery shell, or anything else isn't any lighter when a woman carries it and the unit cannot be compromised.
Everyone also needs to sign up for selective service now. And I mean every U.S. citizen when they turn 18, men and women. If they don't then they need to be denied student loans and anything else that requires selective service verification. I fully expect to see all the women of fighting age, regardless of mental or physical capacity, sign up and no grandfathering the 20-30 somethings out.
This policychage is a big deal. I am for equal rights and opportunities for women. If this policy is enacted then women should be requried to register for selective service like 18 year old men do.
When any policies change, procedures and integration take time and testing to work out. This is not going to be an overnight transition nor is selective service options. Changes do come in steps and stages.
Reality will sink in when it's discovered that most women don't have quick enough reflexes to jump on a live grenade, totally covering it before it explodes.
Yes, because women aren't self-sacrificing. Guess who wiped your bum all those years?
why give a infantry slot to a female that has lower standards than a man. waste of a slot and puts peoples lives at risk
so you'd leave an infantry slot unfilled because no man will enlist?
I would. Better not to have someone in the slot than having to lose one or two others to support that one person. Just having one other person support someone else just doubled your loss of manpower.
No slot will be unfilled in the Innfatry expecially for leadership positions. Right now the military is preparing for a downsize that makes it even more competative. People do not know what they are asking for. There is a difference between a Soldier getting killed ona "mounted" patrol vs a 10 day persistant engagement operation. We are not Isreal nor are we Canada. This is the begining of the end of the "greatest combat force" on the planet. Standards will be fall and people will die. Our nation was weakend today.
If women are in the grunts, trust me, no "slot" will go unfilled.
women only account for 14% of the military forces. Every branch is overmanned and people are on over one year waiting lists to get into the military. Theres defiantly no problem with filling these infantry spots with men.
I agree.
No, you do not lower standards....Everyone seems to think that this will mean lower standards....No. This means that you set standards that all must test against. I no more want some 5'2" female that can't lift 50lbs in a physically demanding position than I want some 5'2" slightly built male. Now, on the other hand, put that 6' female in there anytime....IF she can meet the standards! Utilize the standards correctly....this is no more a world-changer than those that thought that allowing African Americans into the military would lower the standards...no more than the fear that allowing gay Americans into the military would change how we operate....(guess what ? it hasn't changed anything....) Utilize all of our talents as a military and a country. Get those women who are awesome snipers into sniper positions....if a girl can drive a tank like she stole it; get her in there! EOD takes guts and often a careful hand....get her in there! Quit equating capability with anatomy....its archaic and shows your ignorance.
I want to be President........that does not mean I should be.
Great, can hear the radio chatter now. Hey in the next supply drop do you want mini or maxi?
everyone knows women have low PT standards and special treatment. want to be equal, then do the same standard as a man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Women. The feminist movement has just done a disservice. They’re sending you to you deaths, leaving you kids motherless and to later be raised by you man’s next woman.
Well, “be careful what you wish for”.
Well, I'm telling my nephew to unenlist. He's survival rate has just decreased.
Israel has had women in combat roles for years haven't hurt them yet
truth is unlike the USA..all of isreal's war where women are involved are defensive..so the women arent or cant be captured and so far so gud isreal has won all its wars since 1948
@lee you flawed feminist twit...Israelis require everyone to serve due to the fact they are surrounded my millions that wold like to destroy them. Israeli soldiers training is not anywhere as difficult as ours even in Army basic infantry.
I'm Afraid i have to disagree, man for man, an Israeli infantry platoon, without support of any kind, is vastly Superior to almost any other country when it comes to Urban Warfare. their training is much more difficult and riggourous than standard US Army or Even Marine Corps boot camps. plus their force is smaller, they have more money concentrated into a smaller force, therefore they can afford to train each soldier better.
It is inherently better to be fatherless. Duh?
You are an idiot.....how many kids are left fatherless?? Too many and I have seen it!!! Get rid of all the weak and scared men who are decreasing your chance of survival too!!!!
who needs men, when woman will destroy each other... if you ask me it has never been men they are just a tool in which woman use to control other woman... just a thought...
all i see are females getting out of PT everyday because they have a medical problem. that wont fly on the battlefield.
Do you honestly think those women are going to try for combat slots? The article makes it pretty clear these positions would be voluntary. Just because a few women joined to get college money doesn't mean they all did.
Hahahahha and i see p*ssya$$ shamtastic profile riding males in the ER everyday what is your point? Oh thats right you have none
Nigeria did it first and now the Americans have copied that, later they will claimed they did it first..
the nigerians wont put them in d field..dnt b dull pls
The Israelis have one of the toughest militaries out there, and they have women in every job. Why not us too, I guess.
The trick is going to be equal standards. I've seen some women are very tough and strong, more so then average man. The thing is, those exceptional women should be the only ones doing this. As long as they don't lower the standard so EVERY woman can, I'm okay with this.
Agreed... Standards CANNOT be compromised.
The NFL and NBA would dry-up and whither away if either were forced to comply with social wish-lists or forms of affirmative action(s), versus the standards they have in place and that is just meaningless sports...
Imagine the ramifications of doing the like with our military and national security...
Not knocking your post MikeJ, but Israel has compulasary service for all citizens who are physically and mentally able to. This is due to the nature of Israels situation of being surrounded by hostile nations and close-proximity threats alike.
They are in an active defensive mode 24/7, much more so than the U.S. or any NATO ally...
dont u get it..isreal is defence only..its soilders mostly fight in its own land..so capture is nt a possibility and..women would do well but they shld serve at home..thats safer..if nt..american women pow's would soon b carryin different nations children cos rape is real!
Scotz, you spell like Shaq and your grammar is horrible. Learn to write properly before you post anything.
We honorable for a woman to want to do this and they must have the right to do so. With that said, I fail to see the reason behind it. Is the military opening this up to women for equality reasons or because they need more recruits?
The military hardly needs help recruiting.
oops .. I meant to say VERY honorable not We ... Sorry bout that
So lets see, there's two types of people posting here: Those that approve but say the standards should be the same for both men and women and those that spew off something about the Military has gone down the drain or women are too weak for combat.
To me it's pretty easy to see who is and is not in the military (Currently). To those that say this is a bad decision, when you serve, you'll learn that you'll find a different viewpoint on things.
Cavemen and a few "girls without brains".....it will be ok. Go scratch yourself, drink some beer and watch some adult movies. If other countries can make it work, the US will make it work even better.
put a woman in a ranger stress shoot. see how bad that goes
word
Special forces aren't so special anymore it seems.. No longer the best of the best... Just a liberal wet dream.
I work with Special Forces. Do you want to know who they had directly embedded in their teams? Women, and their "ladies" more than held their own.
Oh and you're being childish.
lets see a female do an airborne jump, a 20 mile road march with 50 pounds, and a live fire exercise at the end of it. RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!!! women dont belong in combat
Tell that to the Israelis. They have female combat soldiers, and they've never lost a war. Unlike, say, the Americans, with only male fighters.
usa neva fought a defensive war..im sure u'd enlist for d army if usa was attacked..think abt that..and isreal has lost its war in lebanon..anyway
What makes you think a woman can't do that plenty of women are strong enough to cut it in combat the Israelis have been doing it for decades
B!tch please. You are living a damn fantasy. When is the last time you did that?
LMAO...nice
A hell of a lot of men can't do that either. Yet I notice we aren't completely banning men from combat roles.
everyone seems to miss that point...
Women are already in combat and have been since the Revolutionary war. In fact, as of Feb 2011, two servicewomen have been awarded the Silver Star, the military's thrid highest medal for valor in combat. I watched a female airman recevie the Bronze Star for valor in a road-side attack in Afghanistan where she not only returned fire, but saved 2 of her fellow airmen. I personally have female friends who have engaged the enemy as fighter pilots... you better believe there are women in combat roles. We should be proud of any American who's willing to put their lives on the line for our country and our freedoms... I agree, women should be able to meet the physical standards expected of men in traditional combat roles, but don't underestimate the differences and stregths between genders, too.
Ever seen one of those women who competes in triathlon events?
It's not like the men of this country are signing up to fight. The last ten years have proven that. May as well let the women do it.
most of the people that agree with this have never served and doesnt know what u need to be in combat. those of us who have been in it know that women would put lives at risk and weaken the military
And yet many people who have been in combat feel otherwise. Do you have anything to offer besides a general opinion?
Exoskeletons will likely be an equalizer in terms of physical requirements.
Republicans simply want to do "The Deciding" for Women, no matter what issue is.
lets see women do 72 push ups, 78 sit ups,5 mile run under 40 minutes, and 7 pull ups. if she can do that then let them go out for combat units. stop giving women weaker standards
Do you really think women who max the male PRT standards don't exist? I can't tell you're not in the military.
I think people are afraid some 5'0 100 pound princess is suddenly going to decide to go infantry, but that won't happen. Women like that will stay exactly where they are (behind desks) because that's where they want to be. The females who choose to go infantry are going to be the hardA ones.
after 10 days in the field without showers, they will all be yeast infection casulties.
John – I wonder if you can do those tasks.
The Israelis have women in combat roles, and the IDF kicks azz (so to speak). Of course women can fight, and why not? The burdens of citizenship should fall equally on all citizens.
women should no be in combat.It's too dirty and hard for them.
It should also be mandatory that a women soldier,while on tour should NOT get pregnant.This is WAR,we don't need to have to take of your changing body.The second you get pregant,you get discharged and must stay on leave intill the baby comes out and the soldier feels ready after re-tests.
Because now I don't want a whole crop of women crying that the military isnt helping their new pregant bodies etc...
You obviously know nothing because it currently IS against the rules for a woman to get pregnant while deployed.
Those that oppose Equal Opportunity must be
living elsewhere in the world besides the United
States. We strive for the pursuit of happiness
and that includes Equal Opportunity in every
field, no matter the differences physically,
mentally, etc. If you do live in the United
States and oppose equal rights for everyone,
then I do hope you plan to move elsewhere,
because the United States is of being Equal in
all ways possible.
I do agree that women should be included in the
draft and the height/weight charts be
normalized. I agree we should have a standard,
that all inspiring to be an infantry combatant,
should ahere to.
I would assume both men and women would go
through rigorous training to show that they are
ready and capable of the expected requirements
for infantry combat. If this is not the case, it
is not women that should be banned, but rather
the regulations to be updated.
For those that have the viewpoint of women being
empathetic, loud mouths, etc and the viewpoint
of men of being chivalrous, e.g. "man sees women
in danger, man runs to save woman's life," keep
in mind, that we are human, both men and women
alike, we have many differences and
simililarities that are present in each of us.
Do not assume that we all fall into the same
stereotypes respective of each gender and should
not be used as a means to justify not including
women in combat roles.
"A person can grow only as much as [their]
horizon allows." Modified quote of John Powell
to be politically correct and gender nuetral =)
Women should not be allowed in combat. Period!
Your opinion exists.
As a combat vet I will tell you this will be a disaster. Discipline break down will be frequent and often. Moreover, the physical fitness standards will be reduced for women, they will have to be, that I state from experience. So what have women won in the cry of "equality" if standards are lowered for them and them only?
What a joke.
This couldn't be anymore true.. Woman already get injured in training more than men. Also, having woman around a bunch of men in a war zone, there heads might not be where they are supposed to. This so rediculous wait till the first one dies in combat, it will be the secretary's fault. Politicians will never understand because they are just that. So do they sign up for the draft? Can't wait to see this fly in a grunt unit. Morons
This is just about the stupidest decision ever made. It defies not only logic, but the God-given nature of women. Just another way this society is trying to rip apart the natural order of family, men and women. Women were made by God to be women, not aggressive men in combat. Not saying that women don't have the right to self-defense, but to make this a policy for them to be aggressors in battle is just stupid and irresponsible and against the laws of nature. They should only be put into that role by necessity, not as standard policy. Are these women volunteering themselves prepared for all the horrors the enemy will put them through? Probably not. Yes, agree with other poster that this is just one more way to reduce human population, and eat away at the family. Signed, A Woman
We took a vote. We don't want you speaking for us. Signed. All other women.
We have to find a way to weed out these woman. God's Nature??
Then go on the front lines, sweetheart! Be our guest. Actually, I'm sure most women would agree with me.
Men. Your odds of surviving the military and returning home to your families have just decreased by 50%
Sounds good to me, weed the male population woulde good.
Send in a battalion of chicks... See how they do in the middle east.
hey if a female wants to sleep out in the woods for two weeks straight with no showers, no sleep, little food, then let them go to ranger school. love to see them fall over when they have to carry a 80 pound ruck sack on their back for two months
They did, and they flunked.
Once again, the deified democratic principle of "Absolute-Equality-for-everyone-everywhere" shows itself to densely mindless.
And then they cry how they get raped by male soldiers etc
What other professions would you like to exclude women from by raping them? Teaching? Doctors? Cashiers?
While this decision may be controversial, women serving in combat, although not common, has been part of American history since the Revolution. Deborah Sampson dressed as a man and enlisted in the Continental Army under her dead brother's name, Robert Shurtlif Sampson. She served a year and a half, was wounded in battle and dug the musket ball out of her leg herself with a pen knife. She was discovered when she came down with a fever, however, no word was said against her. She was honorably discharaged at the end of the war and received a soldier's pension. Mary Ludwig Hays followed her artillary husband to war as a "Molly Pitcher," a woman who brought water to artillary crews to cool down the hot cannon barrels so they wouldn't burst. When her husband fell due to the heat, Mary manned the cannon until the end of the battle. General George Washington made her a sergeant, and she, too, received a pension after the war. Another Molly Pitcher, Margaret Corbin, ran water to the artillary in the Battle of Fort Washington in New York. When her husband was killed, she took his place at the cannon until British grape tore into her left arm, chest, and jaw. She was captured by the British, paroled as a wounded soldier, and became the first American woman to receive a pension for invalided soldiers.
In the Civil War, historians estimated that between 400 and 800 women dressed as men and served in both the Union and Confederate armies, and although not officially allowed to enlist, many of these women received soldiers' pensions after the war. There were also women like Bridget Divers who followed her husband to war with the First Michigan Calvary. She not only nursed wounded soldiers, she also helped bring them off the field, and even traveled behind the lines to recover the bodies of slain officers. It is also said that, on occasion, when a soldier fell, she picked up his rifle and took his place in line. After the Civil War, she stayed with the army and it is believed she died out West during the Indian Wars. Mary "French Mary" Tepe and Anna "Gentle Annie" Etheridge both enlisted as Daughters of the Regiment - Yes, the United States Army did enlist women to such a position. While their official duties required them to cook, do laundry, and nurse, both women went out on the field during battle to remove the wounded. Mary Tee was wounded in the foot during battle, and Annie Etheridge was wounded in the hand. Both women received the Kearney Cross (named for General Philip Kearney) for valor under fire. They were accepted as heroines by Victorian-America.
Do I want, as a high school teacher, to see my female students go off to war? No. But if they want the opportunity to serve their country, then I cannot object.
To counter your arguments - open some books. The men who served alongside these women respected them. They held their own in battle and there are, at least to my knowledge, NO accounts of battles being lost to women.
If women could fight in our Revlutionary and
well said...
The brief historical references have enlightened all that have read it and informed us of events and actions taken up by women, however, it does not and will not change my mind of the negative and bigger picture issues associated with this decision. Let me give an example of my take on equality: I have a right to wear a dress and heals and carry a pocket book yet it's not something I desire or want to do.
Chuck women can and do fight just as good as men the Israelis have had women fighting for decades, women fought both for the USSE and the resistance movement in WW2.
If you have a wife, girlfriend or sister in the military, have them get out. Especially if it's a chance of them being in combat.
Actually, I think this is what the new order is trying to do. Decrease the number of women in the military.
Well, either way, their numbers will decrease in battle or discharge.
Clever move.
This is a bad idea! If the Taliban captures a male American service member they cut off there head. Lets all imagine what would be done to service women in similar situations If your mind has not come up with rape and other assorted scenarios you are both a good person and not thinking realistically. Wake up america! Not every country respect women like we do!
Yes, a captured would would almost certainly be raped as part of the torture inflicted on her. No, we don't want that to happen any more than we want a captured man to be tortured and executed. Like any job, as long as they are going in knowing and accepting the dangers they should be allowed to.
Respect women??? What are the rates of violence against women in the US? If a woman wants to serve in a combat role she accepts all that come with it. The objections seem to be from men who pretend to put value on females.
Got news for you. Taliban do rape their male prisoners as well.
And the male prisoners don't get pregnant. The transport units in Iraq had really bad rape problems for all the female POW. Never hear how many were impregnated and how far along they were when released. WHY on God's green earth would the citizens of this country put our women in that position. That's their right, huh ? Not in my book. I'd never want my daughter or granddaughter willingly put into that position as part of her job. My grandfather was a POW and had it bad. Can't we have mothers raising children at home and not returning from war with that scenario.
I love the negative reactions all over this comment board. The funny thing is you know the people who are complaining are the same ones who say bullh*t like "Well if feminists really want equality then let them fight on the font lines!". But now the government simply allowing them to apply for these positions is driving them mad! Sorry you won't be able to use your BS line anymore to justify your male chauvinism any more. Hypocrites.
yeah it has really brought the cavemen out hasnt it?
if women can do the same standards as men then they can try out for it. but the real soldiers that have served know that women get special treatment, lower standards, and are always in sick call complaining about something. in combat there are no timeout and women simply cant hang.
Let the R A P I N G began ...........it will bring a whole new meaning to parting with the FEMALE P.O.W.
Why is it only men care about rape? It's so weird.
Because most of them are pervs, no matter where they come from. Women in military are raped by fellow soldiers and nothing is done about it. Men bring out "rape" similar to bringing out the race card. Any time women try to break out of men's perceived control, the rape word is thrown around as if all women will be terrified. As if the taliban couldn't whack off the men's jewels before execution. Yes, all you men grab your crotches in horror now. See how that works? Bobbitt, Bobbitt, Bobbitt. LOL
Great! So when will we start requiring women to register for the draft! And when will we also demand that half of the forces on the ground are women. Women have forcefully pushed their way into the workforce and demanded a 50% stake in it. Lawmakers have, in many career fields, passed laws to ensure a "fair" percentage of the workforce is female. So lets start mandating that women die on our battlefields at the same rate as men. Come on women!! You can do it!! Pick up that gun, pick up that 70+ pound pack!! LETS GO! LETS BE EQUALS in love and in death!
I've been serving in the Army for quite some time. If women want to serve in the combat arms let them. Just be thankful the draft card hasn't been used or you'd really hear some whining from some of the negative posters here.
Wow.. you are so out of line I just don't know where to begin.
You are an idiot. Women have been forced to join the work force because so many wothless s.o.b. Husbands dump their wives and act like they never helped create their kids. I got the good job I have because after searching for months I was the ONLY person the company found that had the education and credentials to do it. No one handed me the job. They were darn glad to find me to fill their niche.
Women outlive men on average, because we are stronger. When men can birth a 9 or 10 pound baby, while having NO pain meds, we can talk about who is tough. I am all for equality whenever you men are up to it. Let me know when you can handle bleeding like crazy for one week of each month and pop out a kid every few years.