Combat Roles Open to Women

Nocode8511

Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
3,806
Reaction score
448
Get Shredded!
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will remove the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war, a senior defense official confirmed Wednesday.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.
“This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the secretary of defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” a senior defense official said.
Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALs and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer.
The official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15. The announcement on Panetta's decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.
In recent years, the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached -- but not formally assigned -- to units on the front lines.
Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active-duty military personnel.

The Washington Times obtained a copy of the memorandum entitled “Women in the Service Implementation Plan” by Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“The time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service,” Dempsey wrote in the memo, dated Jan. 9.
Dempsey explained that the vote to lift the ban was unanimous among the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously join me in proposing that we move forward with the full intent to integrate women into occupational fields to the maximum extent possible,” Dempsey wrote, according to the Washington Times report. “To implement these initiatives successfully and without sacrificing our warfighting capability or the trust of the American people, we need time to get it right.”
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit, naming Panetta as the defendant, on behalf of four military women challenging the combat exclusion as unconstitutional.
“The combat exclusion policy is based on outdated stereotypes of women and ignores the realities of the modern military and combat conditions,” the lawsuit said.
The ACLU responded to the announcement Wednesday with cautious optimism.
“We are thrilled to hear Secretary Panetta’s announcement today recognizing that qualified women will have the same chance to distinguish themselves in combat as their brothers-in-arms, which they actually already have been doing with valor and distinction,” said Ariela Migdal, an attorney for the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, in a statement on Wednesday.
Migdal said in the statement that she hoped the new policy would be “implemented fairly and quickly so that servicewomen can receive the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts.”
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said the move is an historic step for equality and recognizing the role women have already been playing in defending the country. In Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been no front lines. Women -- whether acting as drivers or interpreters -- have encountered the same danger and hostile fire as their male counterparts, Murray said.
“From the streets of Iraqi cities to rural villages in Afghanistan, time and again women have proven capable of serving honorably and bravely,” she said.
Iraq War veteran U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, called the Pentagon decision “long overdue” and pointed out in a statement that American women have been serving "on the battlefield as far back as the Civil War, when some disguised themselves as men just to have the opportunity to serve their nation.”
Gabbard is one of the first female combat vets to serve in Congress. She deployed to Iraq in 2004 as an enlisted soldier with a medical company of the 29th Brigade Combat Team. A few years later, as an officer, she was again deployed to the Middle East, including Kuwait.
“I look forward to hearing the details of how this [change] will be executed, and will support full and equal access for our highly capable female servicemembers to serve our country in all roles,” she said in her statement.
Civil liberties organizations were quick to applaud the announcement, with Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, calling it a “historic day” marking the end of “the last vestige of government-sanctioned sex discrimination in the United States."
“Now if the best person for the job is a woman, she will no longer be barred from that job simply because of her gender,” Campbell said.
-- Michael Hoffman and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2013 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 

RoidsR4m3

Going Pro 2016
Registered
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
165
Location
[][][]--------[][][]
I'm sorry but I'm going to be a totally sexes on this one and say this should not happened. This goes so much further than womens right too. As a prior team member of one of America's elite special forces, I have to disagree. Their are so many things that could go wrong by having a woman on an elite unit. One of the biggest is emotions. You can't let that get in the way of your job. Also, the things a terrorist would do to a woman would go way beyond that of a man if she were to be caught. Strength, aggressiveness, agility, speed and so on and so forth. My job as a Special Weapons and Tactics Instructor, a forward recon instructor and close-quarter operator combat instructor, is to instill a total "kill or be killed" mentality in the men I train. Let's just say for example, that a woman was able to pass the indoc and all the other various combative courses needed to join a unit. If you were to be in a forward deployed location like I still go in, and you were to take fire, the responses of a woman would just not be the same as that of a man. I see men freeze up all the time in real life and these are the most hard-core mutha fuckers in the world. You have to be born and bread to do this, you can't just try and join because you want to be a badass or show your daddy that he has a tough little girl. This will cost the government and arm and a leg not to mention the medical costs of injury's if we as a nation open these options up to woman. Ok, so I know I went a little off topic and I am in no way a sexes at all, it's just what I've seen and done that makes me believe that woman are not made to be forwardly deployed. enough said....
 
  • Like
Reactions: olz

popeyeslament

Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
399
Reaction score
32
I'll take an opposing view. Just to add balance. Fuck yeah! Put the bitches on the front line.
After knowing a few Israeli Defense Force women (HOT) I came to the conclusion that we (USA) should follow. They comprise about 1/3 of the entire IDF. These were some tough ass women.
I might want to fuck them but not fuck with them.
Your Mileage May Vary
 

irish_2003

Board Rep
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
678
Reaction score
39
this is nothing more than dog n pony show/parade...

people keep talking about men and women equal but until women are scored on the same numbers as the men are then it's NOT close to being equal...also simply passing the minimum isn't enough...most men in combat arms far exceed the minimum...so if women were included and only passing the average scores for a "person" would be lower overall...hell, i had an extremely difficult time making it in my unit being one of the smallest soldiers...many men can't make it...and if women WERE equal then the olympics would only have "Open" events instead of Men/women categories...making our combat arms soldier already weaker...in addition women are routinely pulled from the field for female sanitation (how's that fair or equal?)...and also men don't get raped when captured/hostage...i can't live with knowing our women will be raped by a bunch of sand niggers because someone wanted them to be equal...and the number of sexual harassment claims will dramatically increase...men will no longer be able to be men in the baracks, field, training area, combat zones...no more "locker room humor or talk"...this will effect the esprit de corps dramatically...oh, and the days of "wall to wall" counseling no longer exist...this decision is smoke and mirrors...women will never serve day to day combat offensive operations like the men of the various infantry divisions...yes women serve in frontline combat zones, but they're not out actively doing "hunter-killer" team movements or "move to contact" offenses...

this decision means the us military is only one pair of skinny jeans away from disaster now...the "kinder, gentler military" is gayer, weaker, and the laughing stock of the world now...

again this is only for show and it will NEVER be fully put into effect...only way it would work without endangering our men already there is if there are women only combat arms units...the problem then is the men will always be on alert for as rescue units then...
 

RoidsR4m3

Going Pro 2016
Registered
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
165
Location
[][][]--------[][][]
not meant to be a joke, but i imagine sexual harassment cases are sure to spring up

Oh God, I couldn't even imagine all the cases that would arise from this. I totally agree with you. I didn't even mention that because I hate the fact that that shit even happens. You'd have a bunch of high testosterone charged men with a woman, temptation would be there constantly. (I'm not talking about rape but about the fact of just having a female presence among you).
 

irish_2003

Board Rep
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
678
Reaction score
39
Oh God, I couldn't even imagine all the cases that would arise from this. I totally agree with you. I didn't even mention that because I hate the fact that that shit even happens. You'd have a bunch of high testosterone charged men with a woman, temptation would be there constantly. (I'm not talking about rape but about the fact of just having a female presence among you).

no more locker room type humor and no more horseplay...this will ruin the careers of many many men who will have a slight blemish in their records for making a joke or something that is the norm and SHOULD be the norm...but all it will take is one female who is actually a man hater to have a bad day and this will destroy our infantry from the inside
 

exphys88

Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
243
Reaction score
21
no more locker room type humor and no more horseplay...this will ruin the careers of many many men who will have a slight blemish in their records for making a joke or something that is the norm and SHOULD be the norm...but all it will take is one female who is actually a man hater to have a bad day and this will destroy our infantry from the inside

I remember similar fear mongering about allowing gays to serve openly in the military. I remember McCain arguing it would ruin the military. So far there hasn't been any issues.
 

irish_2003

Board Rep
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
678
Reaction score
39
I remember similar fear mongering about allowing gays to serve openly in the military. I remember McCain arguing it would ruin the military. So far there hasn't been any issues.

gays are different than women...we had gays in my unit but they kept it hidden and weren't the flamboyant type...they were tough and respected...

people need to realize that Demi Moore is an actress and GI Jane is only a movie and a huge lie of a movie
 

ordawg1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
3,619
Reaction score
1,071
gays are different than women...we had gays in my unit but they kept it hidden and weren't the flamboyant type...they were tough and respected...

people need to realize that Demi Moore is an actress and GI Jane is only a movie and a huge lie of a movie

How did you know they were gay ??-Thanks-OD
 

ordawg1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
3,619
Reaction score
1,071
didn't find out til after we were all out of the army and thru friends and facebook trying to reconnect with peers...

Gotcha-just wondering as back in mid 60s some of the guys " seemed" gay-but we never knew for certain.They were great guys-but just gave that impression.No facebook back then and only a memory now-Thanks-OD
 

Liquidex

Registered
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
81
Location
In a 30ml plastic bottle :)
I have nothing against female, but I disagree with this one... I understand females can be as good as males in combat action, but just think about it.. Hills Have Eyes all over again...
 

irish_2003

Board Rep
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
678
Reaction score
39
I have nothing against female, but I disagree with this one... I understand females can be as good as males in combat action, but just think about it.. Hills Have Eyes all over again...

exactly...men don't get raped...women get raped
 

RayC

Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
252
Reaction score
11
Location
The Gym
I dont have anything against females but I dislike the whole idea, being that i served 10 years infantry in the Corps 2 to the Ghan and 3 to Iraq its so much stuff that goes on while patrolling and carrying your own weight for miles and miles to get the job done. Distraction at its best the way i look at it even though its not like when i first came in when the Iraq war jumped off in 03 being that it was free for all like COD some things and decisions we have to make without second guessing it, like i was always told as as a young pup your paid to do as i say not think lol, and I've been around these so called Femal engagement Teams (FET), didnt really know how to load their wpn or follow the right directions before gettign someone hurt. I can see this will end very bad from sexual harassment etc etc etc if anyone ever served Infantry in the Corp know that we Devil Dogs are a different type of breed than anyone else out there and we love what we do thats why we are good at it alone Semper Fi.
 

RAINier

Super Mod McBain
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
4,168
Reaction score
207
Location
North America
exactly...men don't get raped...women get raped
That's 100% bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

I don't agree with this whole thing either. Where's the part about them having to sign up for Selective Service?
And they better not have some reduced physical requirements bullshit... that's ridiculous.
 

irish_2003

Board Rep
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
678
Reaction score
39
That's 100% bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

I don't agree with this whole thing either. Where's the part about them having to sign up for Selective Service?
And they better not have some reduced physical requirements bullshit... that's ridiculous.

i should have worded it as "women get raped at much considerably higher rates than men who are captured"...others will argue that our own troops do most of the rapings...well then that's just even dumber to put women in those situations then...
 
Top