Pentagon to overturn ban on women in military combat roles

Pentagon to overturn ban on women in military combat roles | World news | guardian.co.uk

Women could assume combat roles in the US army for the first time as early as this year, following a landmark decision by defense secretary Leon Panetta to lift a military ban on women serving on the frontline.

The groundbreaking move could open up hundreds of thousands of frontline positions, and could see women working in elite commando units.

One official told the Associated Press, which revealed details of the move, that military chiefs will report to the Pentagon on how to integrate women into combat roles by 15 May.

Panetta's decision was hailed as a "historic step" by one senator and could eventually open up 230,000 jobs to female military personnel. The Pentagon had previously opened around 14,500 combat positions to women in February 2012, but females were still prevented from serving in the infantry, in tank units and in commando units.

Women, although banned from serving in combat roles, have been heavily involved in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 12 years, serving as pilots, military police, intelligence officers and other roles attached to, if not formally part of, frontline units. By last year, around 130 women had died and 800 had been wounded since the wars began

Click to expand...

Personally, I'm fine with this as long as they physical requirements are the same. If you can't lift enough or run long enough, you're putting other people in extra danger as well as yourself.

Pilot said:

Personally, I'm fine with this as long as they physical requirements are the same. If you can't lift enough or run long enough, you're putting other people in extra danger as well as yourself.

Click to expand...

I agree. No women graduated my jump school (~6 fell out on Friday runs). And the pushups gotta be proper, center of gravity is a big tough crap so I guess they'll need to be stronger than the men, relatively, which women should be used to by now .

I wouldn't have enjoyed it, but it's a entirely different world. If it is equality the military wants then we should reinstate the draft with no deferments for fortunate sons. THAT would make a difference worth having. At that point I'd say, sure let the women serve in combat if they can hump the load.

At this point, with asymmetric warfare becoming the norm, everywhere is the battlefield. Makes no sense to prevent them from joining combat roles that see heavy fighting when support roles often encounter the same stuff anyways.

Pilot said:

Pentagon to overturn ban on women in military combat roles | World news | guardian.co.uk


Personally, I'm fine with this as long as they physical requirements are the same. If you can't lift enough or run long enough, you're putting other people in extra danger as well as yourself.

Click to expand...

Agreed..

If they're physically capable of hanging with the boys then more power to them. However If they can't keep pace it should be a no go.

Soldiers shouldn't be held back in war zones or die just to be politically correct...

obvious Child said:

At this point, with asymmetric warfare becoming the norm, everywhere is the battlefield. Makes no sense to prevent them from joining combat roles that see heavy fighting when support roles often encounter the same stuff anyways.

Click to expand...

Woman are not capable of the same physical activities as men. Men move faster and are stronger - that is just a fact.

Few woman are capable of performing such duties.

You'd end up with members of the service carrying woman around on their backs because they cant make it...

If we want equality than let's make women eligible for the draft. What you can't do is pretend to make things fair by putting those in ****ty situations in even worse situations if they are held back. Don't think our soldiers have light loads and personal AC units to keep them cool. It's hard work out there and the majority of women would be a liability.

If you disagree find the worst part of town you know and ask the police officer if he would prefer a male or female partner.

I've got no problem with it as long as the requirements for both men and women are the same. There are probably plenty of combat jobs that aren't all that physical that women could do just as well as men.

I say we go for an all female military, and let the guys sit back for a change. After running the military for thousands of years, it's time to let the womenz show their stuff.













CAT FIGHT!!!!!

I have one big issue with this. Women will not be held to the same physical standard men are yet will be able to enjoy all of the benefits of meeting said standard. If women and politicians want TRUE equality in the military, they would hold all servicemembers (regardless of sex) to the same standard. However, this will not happen for a few reasons. I will speak to Marine Corps standards as obviously I am more familiar with those than other (lesser) services.

1) I believe a lot of women can meet our annual minimum standard of 3 pullups, 44 crunches in 2 minutes, and a 3 mile run in at least 28 minutes. Just for a little background, the male point scale is 5 points per pullup up to 20 (40 points for 3 pullups for women, then increasing to 65 for 4, and up by 10 to 8 pullups), 1 point per crunch, and 1 point taken away per ten seconds starting at 18:01 (21:01 for females) on the run. All of this equals a 300 point scale. A first class score is 225-300. The issue is that women can't much better than the minimum, especially on the pull up portion, if held to the men's standard. A woman running faster than 21 minutes on a 3 mile run is extremely rare. Even when I attended Drill Instructor school with females, one of whom was a former gymnast and in extremely good shape, I did not have any females run faster than 21:30. Also, the gymnast could only do 12 pullups. That is a lot, for a woman. But we shouldn't say that should we? If we are truly seeking equality, I should be able to say that she was slightly above average, FOR A MARINE.

2) Our Combat Fitness Test is also an annual requirement that again has different standards for both sexes. The scoring for this test is a little more complicated than the PFT, so I will save the pain of posting it. However, it does involve Marines "fireman's" carrying other Marines during the "maneuver under fire" portion of the test. Men are required to complete this and other events within the maneuver under fire portion in 3 min 29 seconds. Women are given 4 min 57 seconds. This, again, is not equal and should be addressed. Where is the outcry for this inequality? You don't hear it. Why? Because leaders, politicians, and women know that they can't hang with men's scores. They don't want to be E-2's and E-3's for their entire first enlistment. So they keep their mouth shut about that inequality.

3) The point of all of this is that women would never get promoted. They would be in the back of the pack due to physical standards that weigh very heavily into the composite score Marines accumulate for various measurable skills (rifle range score, combat fitness test score, physical fitness test score, etc). The only answer would be to relax the standards for men to bring down the bar instead of raise females to the bar. Is that really what we want to do? Lower the bar for everyone and make the force less competent to make a few people feel included?

4) Will women be willing to share facilities with men? I doubt it. Why not? This is inequality is it not? Why should a woman rate her own shower and bathroom facilities that will inevitably be much nicer than the males due to the lack of usage. Where is the outrage about this?

5) Will women be held to the same standard as men in recruit training? Why is the minimum miles per hour for our hikes 4 mph and theirs 3 mph?

6) Why do women get their own, shorter Obstacle Course in recruit training? Why don't they use the same one's the males use? If they can't get up to the 8 foot bar that we use and instead get to use the 6 foot bar, isn't that inequality?

I say all of this to point out the fact that the cry for equality in the military is a hypocritical one to say the least. The SecDef, Joint Chiefs, politicians, and women want the rewards men earn given to females yet don't want them to be held to the same standards as those men. If they all want equality, they should want women to meet the same standards as we do. This will not happen though for one simple reason. If women were held to our standard, VERY few of them would ever make it passed E-3 to E-4 in the Marine Corps. They would never be allowed to be a Sergeant because they wouldnt meet the standard. And God forbid we have THAT inequality of men always leading women. How dare we hold everyone to one standard.

Mr.Nick said:

Woman are not capable of the same physical activities as men. Men move faster and are stronger - that is just a fact.

Few woman are capable of performing such duties.

Click to expand...

So why not let those who can do those duties?

The whole argument against letting them into those roles was primarily due to the threat levels they faced. But today's combat situation turns that upside down.
Iraq saw truck drivers in some of the worst fighting.

This is good news because citizens will not be as willing to send their daughters to war as they are willing to sacrifice men. Young men have little value in our culture.

If women are to enjoy all of the rights and privileges of citizenship, then they should be required to take on all the responsibilities.

Some women are stronger than some men. Physical abilities, not gender, should determine who is in combat.

obvious Child said:

At this point, with asymmetric warfare becoming the norm, everywhere is the battlefield. Makes no sense to prevent them from joining combat roles that see heavy fighting when support roles often encounter the same stuff anyways.

Click to expand...

The sort of fighting that occurs in a COIN environment is much different than a conventional war. Women routinely see combat as they pass by an ambush in a vehicle. My 7 year old could do that. I'm talking about locating, closing with, and destroying the enemy by fire and maneuver Private Ryan style. Someday, we will be in a conventional war again. And when we get to that point, the females will not be able to keep up. That's not sexist, it's just a fact.

I think this speaks to the issue:

GWEN IFILL: It sounds like you're saying this is a difference without a distinction.

JAMES KITFIELD: Well, what I'm saying is wars have a way of sort of making some of these distinctions meaningless, because women are already in combat, quite honestly.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june13/womencombat_01-23.html

If the men can't count on the women in combat like they do other men, then the women don't belong there. END OF STORY!

Good, now lets work on the equal right to register for the Draft. And, while we are at it, women should be dieing on the battlefield at an equal rate as men. Women pushed their way into the workforce, demanding a 50% stake, many times backed by federal laws. So where are these laws when it comes to ensuring women take on the roles of firefighters, constructions workers, pavement workers, coal miners, loggers, truck drivers, garbage men... Some of the most dangerous jobs where the highest job related deaths occur are occupied by men. WHEN WILL WOMEN SHARE THE BURDEN!!! You want equality, but only when you want to have it. But you dont want to share the responsibility men have to maintain and build our countries infastructure or on the front lines protection our interests overseas. WHERE ARE YOU LADIES!!! Is this true equality when men still account for over 90% of the workplace deaths, die 7 years younger, commit suicide 6 times as much, represent 38% of college graduates. Did you know that single women that dont have kids make 117% of single men that never have kids. Did you know that women command over 70% of spending. Did you know that Women have 150% more net worth than men on average.

Equal rights!!! Get serious. Equal rights is taking a slice of not just the good but the bad also. Taking on only the work you want to take on, and forcing employers to hire you in respect of gender equality is not equal rights, its entitlement. STEP IN LINE LADIES!!!! You have a lot to do before you are truely EQUAL to men.

Pick up that 70+LB pack, grab that gun and face the enemy like we have been doing and dieing while doing it for over 400 years. Go demand that job at the construction site, coal mine, sanitation office, logging office...ect..ect.. demand your 50% of job related deaths!!!

Boo Radley said:

I think this speaks to the issue:

GWEN IFILL: It sounds like you're saying this is a difference without a distinction.

JAMES KITFIELD: Well, what I'm saying is wars have a way of sort of making some of these distinctions meaningless, because women are already in combat, quite honestly.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Lifts Armed Services Ban on Women in Combat | PBS NewsHour | Jan. 23, 2013 | PBS

Click to expand...

The "women are in combat already" fallacy has to stop. Women are not outside the wire actively seeking out the enemy. EVER. What they are doing is convoys and occassional local patrols with infantry squads for the purpose of exploiting women for intelligence. These patrols are typically accompanied by higher ranking members of the unit, intel guys, terps, etc and are not there for the purpose of engaging the enemy. By occassional I mean maybe once a week, if that. As far as convoys, they don't see combat as most think of it. What they see is their 50 vehicle logistics convoy take some pot shots, an IED, maybe an RPG. They sit inside the truck (just like everyone else in the convoy), hope none of it hits them (just like everyone else in the convoy), then continue on once the attack stops. Sure, there is the occassional instance where a woman engages the enemy, but it is rare. For all of the combat these women are supposedely in, where are the valorous awards? There has been one female since the WOT began that received one (silver star). And guess what? She was a medic on a convoy. Look, I'm not downplaying what this woman did or any other woman. They have served honorably. But they are not out actively seeking the enemy and going out on patrol everyday like a grunt is. They are not playing grunt and simply not receiving the credit for it. That is false and something that many, not saying you specifically Boo, are touting as the reason for this lift.

MarineTpartier said:

The "women are in combat already" fallacy has to stop. Women are not outside the wire actively seeking out the enemy. EVER. What they are doing is convoys and occassional local patrols with infantry squads for the purpose of exploiting women for intelligence. These patrols are typically accompanied by higher ranking members of the unit, intel guys, terps, etc and are not there for the purpose of engaging the enemy. By occassional I mean maybe once a week, if that. As far as convoys, they don't see combat as most think of it. What they see is their 50 vehicle logistics convoy take some pot shots, an IED, maybe an RPG. They sit inside the truck, hope none of it hits them, then continue on once the attack stops. Sure, there is the occassional instance where a woman engages the enemy, but it is rare. For all of the combat these women are supposedely in, where are the valorous awards? There has been one female since the WOT began that received one (silver star). And guess what? She was a medic on a convoy. Look, I'm not downplaying what this woman did or any other woman. They have served honorably. But they are not out actively seeking the enemy and going out on patrol everyday like a grunt is. They are not playing grunt and simply not receiving the credit for it. That is false and something that many, not saying you specifically Boo, are touting as the reason for this lift.

Click to expand...

I have to laugh at that assertion as well. If women are in combat roles, why are men still making up the VAST majority of combat related deaths? It is a falicy and a flat out lie to say that women are in combat roles already as if they are routinely on the ground with the men and dieing along with them.

Does this mean our mothers and daughters can be drafted into a combat role? I respectfully decline this option.

ecofarm said:

I agree. No women graduated my jump school (~6 fell out on Friday runs). And the pushups gotta be proper, center of gravity is a big tough crap so I guess they'll need to be stronger than the men, relatively, which women should be used to by now .

Click to expand...

Explain - center of gravity affects pushups? (genuine curiosity here). I remember the 'pick up the chair' thing when I was in school which was funny but I never quite got how it actually affected much else.

Putting aside for the moment the fact that I am opposed to women in most military duties to begin with.....

The ONLY way that I could see this being acceptable would be if these women were held to exactly the same standards that men are for the same MOS's. If there is an existing height/weight requirement, they should have to meet it. Certain PT criteria.... they should have to meet them. Training and capability requirement should be exactly the same. NO EXCEPTIONS. ONLY, if these women can meet those same criteria should they be allowed to be in these roles. Either that, or reduced the criteria for the men as well.

Additionally, if this goes into place, all American women should be required to register with selective services.

MarineTpartier said:

The "women are in combat already" fallacy has to stop. Women are not outside the wire actively seeking out the enemy. EVER. What they are doing is convoys and occassional local patrols with infantry squads for the purpose of exploiting women for intelligence. These patrols are typically accompanied by higher ranking members of the unit, intel guys, terps, etc and are not there for the purpose of engaging the enemy. By occassional I mean maybe once a week, if that. As far as convoys, they don't see combat as most think of it. What they see is their 50 vehicle logistics convoy take some pot shots, an IED, maybe an RPG. They sit inside the truck (just like everyone else in the convoy), hope none of it hits them (just like everyone else in the convoy), then continue on once the attack stops. Sure, there is the occassional instance where a woman engages the enemy, but it is rare. For all of the combat these women are supposedely in, where are the valorous awards? There has been one female since the WOT began that received one (silver star). And guess what? She was a medic on a convoy. Look, I'm not downplaying what this woman did or any other woman. They have served honorably. But they are not out actively seeking the enemy and going out on patrol everyday like a grunt is. They are not playing grunt and simply not receiving the credit for it. That is false and something that many, not saying you specifically Boo, are touting as the reason for this lift.

Click to expand...

I think you're making a distinction without a meaning. We know they were and are not actively out running those types of missions. The argument is the battlefield is no longer structured that way. The old paradigm no longer holds meaning. And in this new paradigm women are in fact already on the front lines. They are correct.

Tigger said:

Putting aside for the moment the fact that I am opposed to women in most military duties to begin with.....

The ONLY way that I could see this being acceptable would be if these women were held to exactly the same standards that men are for the same MOS's. If there is an existing height/weight requirement, they should have to meet it. Certain PT criteria.... they should have to meet them. Training and capability requirement should be exactly the same. NO EXCEPTIONS. ONLY, if these women can meet those same criteria should they be allowed to be in these roles. Either that, or reduced the criteria for the men as well.

Additionally, if this goes into place, all American women should be required to register with selective services.

Click to expand...

Your selective service comment: that's ignorant . . . the majority of teenage females would be unfit for duty one way or the other and inhibited by childcare, pregnancy and other such things. I don't support it for males, either - so obviously I'm just not going to ok selective service no matter what. It should be dissolved entirely.

Of course - I support mandatory birth control and other such things, too - to avoid pregnancy while on the front and in service....so on, so forth. I'm stringent and people accuse me of being on the psycho side. I see the pregnant female soldier to be the weakest link in the chain and entirely useless.

It might work if combat arms units are segregated by gender, but co-ed units will be a failure.

Aunt Spiker said:

Your selective service comment: that's ignorant . . . the majority of teenage females would be unfit for duty one way or the other and inhibited by childcare, pregnancy and other such things. I don't support it for males, either - so obviously I'm just not going to ok selective service no matter what. It should be dissolved entirely.

Click to expand...

You think that most American males would be fit for service if the draft were to be re-instituted today? I definitely don't.

Aunt Spiker said:

Of course - I support mandatory birth control and other such things, too - to avoid pregnancy while on the front and in service....so on, so forth. I'm stringent and people accuse me of being on the psycho side. I see the pregnant female soldier to be the weakest link in the chain and entirely useless.

Click to expand...

Very true. I'm not a fan of women in the military to begin with, but I definitely feel that they should not be involved in combat operations/