FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/

Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing 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.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning 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.

I think this is a rather stupid move. However if they are going to do this, then the military needs to abolish the separate PT standards. I have no problems with allowing women to serve in combat as long as they are judged by the same standards as men. To just allow woman to serve while using a separate lessor physical standard is only putting lives at risk.

Seems a wise recommendation sacase

equality should be equal

I already saw this movie.

I am not really sure how I feel about this. I am glad that I am no longer in though.

Horrendous decision. Atrocious. Inexcusable. Do you know how intimate the relationships are you develop with your team/squadmembers in the field? It creates that comraderie where you are literally willing to take a bullet for them. Now, those intimite relationaships will be gone, because there will be different standards, different roles, different facilities, different everything. The woman beside you will not have been through everything you have, will not have done everything you have. Pathetic decision.

I have no issue with women in the service and equality. But there are some things that physically woman can't do that a man can. I know I am going to get killed for this post, but this is how I feel. After having lived in a hidesite for 2 weeks with 3 other soldiers doing long range surveillance, there is zero chance that works with a woman. Pissing in bottles, ****ting in MRE bags, and packing that up and carrying it out with you? You don't leave the hidesite, EVER.

I couldn't agree more. I was in 82nd LRSD for 3 years and you are absolutely spot on!!!!!

Horrendous decision. Atrocious. Inexcusable. Do you know how intimate the relationships are you develop with your team/squadmembers in the field? It creates that comraderie where you are literally willing to take a bullet for them. Now, those intimite relationaships will be gone, because there will be different standards, different roles, different facilities, different everything. The girl beside you will not have been through everything you have, will not have done everything you have. Pathetic decision.

I have no issue with women in the service and equality. But there are some things that physically woman can't do that a man can. I know I am going to get killed for this post, but this is how I feel. After having lived in a hidesite for 2 weeks with 3 other soldiers doing long range surveillance, there is zero chance that works with a woman. Pissing in bottles, ****ting in MRE bags, and packing that up and carrying it out with you? You don't leave the hidesite, EVER.

All I can say is congratulations ladies, now shut up and ruck up.

The stories I could tell about the females I encountered....I feel sorry for the line guys....

I was going to be supportive of this based on what sacase said initially, hold them to the same PT standards and physical requisites as elite male soldiers. I'm all for equality as long as it doesn't put anyone at a higher risk. However, after reading what Popeman wrote, I can certainly see the counter argument.

Actually it is "combat positions" which will lead to women in supervisory assignments in combat units. That "can" lead to more/quicker promotions for those female troops. That these positions will be offered and not required takes the steam out of the equality argument.

Horrendous decision. Atrocious. Inexcusable. Do you know how intimate the relationships are you develop with your team/squadmembers in the field? It creates that comraderie where you are literally willing to take a bullet for them. Now, those intimite relationaships will be gone, because there will be different standards, different roles, different facilities, different everything. The girl beside you will not have been through everything you have, will not have done everything you have. Pathetic decision.

I have no issue with women in the service and equality. But there are some things that physically woman can't do that a man can. I know I am going to get killed for this post, but this is how I feel. After having lived in a hidesite for 2 weeks with 3 other soldiers doing long range surveillance, there is zero chance that works with a woman. Pissing in bottles, ****ting in MRE bags, and packing that up and carrying it out with you? You don't leave the hidesite, EVER.

First, I'll emphasize that I'm not trying to make a case one way or the other, I just want to address some points in your post.

Second, why do you assume that the girl beside you will not have been through everything you have? Will not have done everything you have?

Third, why aren't women capable of pissing in bottles (yes, there is a simple plastic device which makes this just as easy for women as it is for men), ****ting in MRE bags and packing it up and carrying it out with them?

Fourth, as for "there are some things that physically women can't do that a man can" - I'm pretty sure there are plenty of things that another dude can do that you can't.

Finally, if they are man enough to enlist in the military, I think they at least deserve to be referred to as women instead of girls.

First, I'll emphasize that I'm not trying to make a case one way or the other, I just want to address some points in your post.

Second, why do you assume that the girl beside you will not have been through everything you have? Will not have done everything you have?

Third, why aren't women capable of pissing in bottles (yes, there is a simple plastic device which makes this just as easy for women as it is for men), ****ting in MRE bags and packing it up and carrying it out with them?

Fourth, as for "there are some things that physically women can't do that a man can" - I'm pretty sure there are plenty of things that another dude can do that you can't.

Finally, if they are man enough to enlist in the military, I think they at least deserve to be referred to as women instead of girls.

...and this is obviously written by someone who has never served.

I will try to address it as best I can, but popeman and others probably know better than me since I was never in a line unit.

First, its the cameradre, you speak to your team without a filter. There is some outlandish and harsh **** said and done all of which builds the team. There is an inherant trust and bond that is built.

second, physical strength

third there is no privacy or shame in the field.

fourth, physical strength

fifth, they are females....

oh boy...

:munchout:

I think i'll just continue to be an oberserver on this one...

Im not sure my thoughts right now. But how to places like Isreal do it? They are always at war, they are in the field all the time, and females are in combat roles. What do they do?

A sure sign that your country is prosperous and peace-seeking.

Im not sure my thoughts right now. But how to places like Isreal do it? They are always at war, they are in the field all the time, and females are in combat roles. What do they do?

Cook?

Seriously, will a guy be more willing to take a bullet for a woman than a man? Is there some sort of protection that comes into play?

Im not sure my thoughts right now. But how to places like Isreal do it? They are always at war, they are in the field all the time, and females are in combat roles. What do they do?

That is interesting. I honestly don't know enough about the US military to comment if this is good or bad without more research, but I would be interested in hearing someone discuss Israel and how their military operates.

First, I'll emphasize that I'm not trying to make a case one way or the other, I just want to address some points in your post.

Cool, as I I stated those are only my feelings on the issue. I have been wrong more than once in my in life (I know, shocking).

Second, why do you assume that the girl beside you will not have been through everything you have? Will not have done everything you have?

Because there are different standards for females. In the field, a woman is, by regulations, offorded the option of access to a bathroom with shower facilities every 72 hours (I think, might be once per week). There are different times for runs, different standards for pushups and situps. You can't bunk in the same barracks.

Third, why aren't women capable of pissing in bottles (yes, there is a simple plastic device which makes this just as easy for women as it is for men), ****ting in MRE bags and packing it up and carrying it out with them?

Can you piss in a bottle while laying down? The hidesite is only about 2 feet deep, and a poncho is covering it with deadfall and grass on it, so you can't exactly sit up/kneel/stand up. If the poncho moves, you potentially exposed your hidesite to the enemy. Plus, are women and men really going to feel comfortable enough together to expose themselves to pee into a bottle? Do you know how seriously the military takes exposure complaints?

Fourth, as for "there are some things that physically women can't do that a man can" - I'm pretty sure there are plenty of things that another dude can do that you can't.

True, male gymnasts can do a ton of stuff I can't do. But in the unit, you have to be able to meet certain physical standards. Most, if not all, females I have experienced in my life could not do these same standards.

Finally, if they are man enough to enlist in the military, I think they at least deserve to be referred to as women instead of girls.

Fair enough.

sacase;940892...and this is obviously written by someone who has never served.

I will try to address it as best I can, but popeman and others probably know better than me since I was never in a line unit.

Great!

First, its the cameradre, you speak to your team without a filter. There is some outlandish and harsh **** said and done all of which builds the team. There is an inherant trust and bond that is built.

What do you think? Because we're women you have to watch what you say and walk on eggshells? We're not little girls ya know.

second, physical strength

Have a 10 pound baby with no pain med's and get back to me mmmkay!

third there is no privacy or shame in the field.

And this has what to do with anything?

fourth, physical strength

Again get back to me on this one.

fifth, they are females....

And again, what exactly is your point?

This is from Wikipedia, so by no means a terrific source. But figured I would add it here:

Israel is the only nation to conscript women and assign some of them to infantry combatant service which places them directly in the line of enemy fire.[22]

Civilian pilot and aeronautical engineer Alice Miller successfully petitioned the High Court of Justice to take the Israeli Air Force pilot training exams, after being rejected on grounds of gender. Though president Ezer Weizman, a former IAF commander, told Miller that she would be better off staying home and darning socks, the court eventually ruled in 1996 that the IAF could not exclude qualified women from pilot training. Even though Miller would not pass the exams, the ruling was a watershed, opening doors for women in new IDF roles. Female legislators took advantage of the momentum to draft a bill allowing women to volunteer for any position, if they could qualify.[23]

In 2000, the Equality amendment to the Military Service law stated that the right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.[24] Women have taken part in Israel’s military before and since the founding of the state in 1948.[25] Women started to enter combat support and light combat roles in a few areas, including the Artillery Corps, infantry units and armored divisions. A few platoons named Karakal were formed for men and women to serve together in light infantry. By 2000 Karakal became a full-fledged battalion. Many women would also join the Border Police.[23]

In June 2011, Maj. General Orna Barbivai became the first female major general in the IDF, replacing head of the directorate Maj. General Avi Zamir. Barbivai stated, "I am proud to be the first woman to become a major general and to be part of an organization in which equality is a central principle. 90 percent of jobs in the IDF are open to women and I am sure that there are other women who will continue to break down barriers."[26][27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces

So it seems in Israel women have to hit the same standards as men (100% agree with. Is that really not the case in the US military?)

---------- Post added January-23rd-2013 at 05:28 PM ----------

also - curious - If women can now serve in all roles of the armed forces, does that mean we should look at selective services and possibly require women to registrar as well? (I always thought as soon as women had to registrar for a draft, it ensures the draft will never come back unless the US is directly attacked. I can just never see Americans being ok with mothers and sisters being shipped to war against their will).

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=69a24083-cecd-dd99-eb85-519ca1e6adff

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today issued the following statement on Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat:

“I respect and support Secretary Panetta’s decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat. The fact is that American women are already serving in harm’s way today all over the world and in every branch of our armed forces. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, and our nation owes them a deep debt of gratitude. 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.”

http://byothermeans.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/23/well_done_mr_secretary

Well done, Mr. Secretary!

Finally! The Pentagon today announced that the ban on women in combat positions will be lifted.

It's about time. The prohibition on women in combat served no useful role. Instead, it devalued the vital role already played by women in military service, and stood as a barrier to advancement for women seeking leadership positions in the military.

I've written about this before, and don't have much that's new to say, so I'll just give some short excerpts from a 2005 Los Angeles Times column I wrote on women in combat, and a more recent piece published here in Foreign Policy.

In 2005, I looked at some of the reasons usually given by those who opposed letting women play combat roles:

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=69a24083-cecd-dd99-eb85-519ca1e6adff

In other words, a political statement that reads positive but in fact raises an objection in the form of the last sentence.

If they can perform to the same physical standards as their male counterparts why not?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/

I think this is a rather stupid move. However if they are going to do this, then the military needs to abolish the separate PT standards. I have no problems with allowing women to serve in combat as long as they are judged by the same standards as men. To just allow woman to serve while using a separate lessor physical standard is only putting lives at risk.

But what if they lower the unified PT standards?