DoD lifts ban on women in combat

[Deberg_1990]

Does this mean that women will now have to register with the Selective Service as well?



http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/art...ds-4218940.php






In a historic action, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today will remove the ban on women in combat that has excluded them from jobs ranging from infantry squad leaders and tank gunners to commandoes.

The decision, praised by women's advocates but denounced by the conservative Family Research Council, ends a 1994 Pentagon policy that barred women from high-risk ground combat jobs.

Women often have seen combat anyway over the past decade, as 283,000 of them went to Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a Congressional Research Service report, with 144 killed and 855 wounded.

“I remember in 1990 when we went into the first Gulf War, there was an uproar about women going to the front lines and talking about women being taken away from their children and having to go to war, having to go into combat,” said Bexar County Sheriff Susan Pamerleau, a retired Air Force major general.

“Then when we went into the Iraqi war (in 2003), there were no longer those kinds of issues,” she said. “Those issues weren't raised because people were recognizing that we've done this for a long time, women are trained to do this.”

Military officials said Panetta would unveil details in a news conference this afternoon.

An implementation period is expected, though details of how the service branches will phase in the policy weren't clear.

Anu Bhagwati, executive director of Service Women's Action Network, which joined three officers and an Army staff sergeant in lawsuit led by the ACLU to overturn the policy, called the decision a historic moment.

The policy, and laws before it, were rooted in a military long segregated by color, ethnicity and gender. But barriers to women had fallen over the decades, especially after the Women's Army Corps was disbanded in 1978.

The combat exclusion policy had barred women from serving in around 238,000 jobs, said Bhagwati, who noted that many of those positions set the stage for higher-ranking assignments. Giving women the chance to compete for combat roles, she predicted, would improve retention and recruiting.

Women make up 14 percent of the 1.4 million troops in the armed forces



Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/art...#ixzz2IuPbDodW

[BucEyedPea]

I had to refamiliarize myself with this from 2005 when I read about it first. But here it is.

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

She was in the combat zone or front line going after 5 marines that had been hit by motor fire I believe.

DoD regulations and congressional law have excluded women in combat as well as from being mixed in with combat missions. However, in Iraq, women were assigned to "forward support units that 'collocate [i.e., are embedded side by side] with units assigned a direct ground combat mission.'"

Frustrated by the Army's devious behavior, Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and John McHugh (R-NY) tried to add an amendment to the military appropriations bill to codify the current DoD regulations which the Army seems to have difficulty understanding.

The Army's own opinion surveys prior to 2001 consistently reported that 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women oppose "being assigned to combat units on the same basis as men." Women enlistees have a right to expect the Army to obey current policy and law.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/200.../05-06-01.html

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Jessica Lynch was a supply troop, but was on a convoy mission supporting combat troops. Obviously very close to the action anyways.....

I know that but that was supposed to be a violation of rules and law. See Post #46.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No we have not. There were limitations on it.

Mmm hmm, I know a few people who spent a few holidays in Iraq/Afghanistan that would disagree.

We may not assign female soldiers to front line infantry units, but we have them across plenty of other MOS' (e.g. transportation, air assault/pilots) that put them in the line of fire. They carry weapons when they are there, and they use them... well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKlUoI0oRkQ

What the decision allows for is the points schedule to be applied to their career folio, opening up higher level positions.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I don't like it because it will open the draft up to women and require registering at age 18.
Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat according to the Supreme Court.

My sarcasm detector has really not been operating very well lately. So I must ask, was this a serious statement?

[WV]

In the times of equal rights for EVERYTHING, I can't seem to figure out why this is an issue for anyone? I wouldn't want my wife being a combat soldier, but that's a whole other story. I wouldn't want my son either.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

My sarcasm detector has really not been operating very well lately. So I must ask, was this a serious statement?

Yup! You don't have to agree or like it though.


This was one of the arguments that Schafly made about the ERA. Her movement called “STOP,” stood for “Stop Taking our Privileges,” which included the exemption from Selective Service registration. The Fabians ( progressives and socialists) work incrementally.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by WV

In the times of equal rights for EVERYTHING, I can't seem to figure out why this is an issue for anyone? I wouldn't want my wife being a combat soldier, but that's a whole other story. I wouldn't want my son either.

Serving in the military is NOT an inalienable right. It's a privilege. The military disqualifies applicants for a number of reasons. This idea that all forms of discrimination are wrong is bogus. Discrimination based on animus is what is wrong. There is no equality of abilities—physical or mental.

[Cheater5]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

http://theweek.com/article/index/239...omen-in-combat

5 silliest reactions to women in combat
Marc Ambinder
January 24, 2013, at 1:30 AM

It's going to take a while before the Defense Department truly integrates women into the hundreds of thousands of combat positions that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opened to them Wednesday. Each service and combatant command will have the opportunity to assess the social and financial costs of the policy change, and it's safe to say that a number of jobs will remain closed to women in the United States. But given that the change was endorsed uniformly by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the same body (with different chiefs) that had trouble staying on the same page on the lifting of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, ban, the reaction from some has been, to borrow a sexist phrase, hysterical.

1. Tucker Carlson tweeted: "The latest feminist victory: The right to get your limbs blown off in war." Note to Tucker: 130 American women have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And of the several hundred who are injured, one now serves quite ably in Congress. (Rep. Tammy Duckworth flew helicopters.) I suspect that many feminists might well agree with Carlson: Women ought to have the right to get their limbs blown off if they're as qualified as men are. Duckworth, whose limbs were, well, blown off, was as good a pilot as the many more men who were injured by IEDs too. This is quaint and false chivalry.

2. It will be hard to integrate women in the special forces. I heard this argument on the radio, and it can be dismissed. There are many women who serve with distinction in the Special Operations Command. The Army Compartmented Element fields highly trained female interrogators and intelligence collectors who are forward-deployed with the Army's special forces and national missions forces. (Some actually helped with the Sensitive Site Exploitation analysis for the pocket litter collected by the SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden.) Similarly, the CIA's Global Response Staff, which provides security and does counter-intelligence for case officers, and many case officers from the agency's Special Activities Division are women. They serve side-by-side with their male colleagues, scouring Libya for militias who have stolen MANPADs, among other tasks. Most SF and SOF and NSW direct action combat roles will not be integrated, by the way.

3. It's an "untested social experiment." As opposed to what? Actually, it's been tested in plenty of countries and worked in most cases, particularly when the integration, the training, the housing, benefit schedules and other factors are duly considered. Women don't want the jobs or the risk, according to the "Center for Military Readiness," which does not speak for women. Then the argument goes: There is too much sexual assault in the military already, too much sexual misconduct; more women will only increase these pathologies. That's not necessarily so, especially if one of the causes of such misconduct is a lack of strong female role models in general/flag or command officer/NCO positions. Also, I have a feeling that most of the women who will volunteer for infantry units are going to be badass. In a good way.

4. Women are biologically different than men in significant ways, and so absolute equality of outcome is neither realistic nor desirable. This is Heather MacDonald's argument. As a statement, it is true, but it has no bearing on the decision made yesterday, which will take into account those differences and still restrict women from a range of roles that require the average upper body strength of a man. That such standards could have been influenced by social conditions rather than be a brute reflection of biological essentials is not part of MacDonald's equation. The worry that standards will be relaxed for women is more appropriately expressed as a desire to make sure that the standards for the job are exacting and right; that means that some may be relaxed, and some may be tightened. Equality of condition in the military for men and women is not a goal of this policy. An end to discriminatory policies that have no rational basis while preserving military readiness — a readiness that still does incorporate a recognition of gender differences — is.

5. This is just like wanting gender-integrated football teams! Or: Obama wants to take guns away from women to help them protect their homes but he wants to give them guns to use on the battlefield! He wants to get them killed. These are analogies in search of a common bridge. War is different than football. (And women in the military are already issued weapons.)

This move is strategic in nature for women's advocacy groups, and those serving in Combat Arms felt the push over a year ago.
Standards are already being lowered or eradicated altogether in preparation of this move.

As for Point #1 above --flying an Attack Helicopter or driving an F16 figher jet, is world's apart from being an ammo bearer in a mortar section, or an M240 machine gunner in an Infantry platoon humping the hills and mountains of Afghanistan. Try introducing a woman into a Combat Outpost in Afghanistan manned by 50 or so infantrymen ages 18-30 who haven't showered in maybe two months, who shit in a 55gal drum next to your friend inside a bunker, and when not getting shot at or actively patrolling and shooting the enemy in the face, think about sex. Not trying to insult anyone here- but out in the hinterlands right now in places such as Helmand, Ghazni, Wardak and Paktia are the few remaining bastions of manhood left- where flesh meets steel, and a woman's presence is superflous. It would destroy the intangible cohesiveness that a rifle platoon must have. If you haven't served- again no insult intended- you cannot grasp this.

What has also falsely influenced the public are silly television programs and movies that put forth the notion that women can defeat men in close combat or are 'warriors'; GI Jane, Salt, Kill Bill, Aliens, Sin City, Underworld...if you don't think entertainment has influence on cultural perceptions, you're wrong.

I have had a woman pilot an A10 Warthog over my head in combat and do great work for us- same for an attack helo pilot. Two nights ago a very professional and competent woman piloted a C130 that I parachuted out of. There are instances of women who have fought valiantly in combat in the roles they currently occupy- but the Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery and Special Forces are a profession of arms; it is not a 'one time' or singular event. It is years of training that includes carrying 100lbs rucks, 27lb machine guns, a 47lb mortar tube, loading 95lb 155mm artillery shells over and over again, breaking track on an M1A2 tank... Most MEN don't want those jobs and these are the lowest density occupational skills in the military- so now we NEED to introduce them to women? This makes us better? It is a 100% political move with little concern for what truly goes on at the cutting edge of battle. Standards (minimum accepted abilities to accomplish the mission) will and are going to be lowered. Men will end up pulling more than their fair share of women's physical tasks so these same women can check a block and move up the chain.

As for Point #3 above; the Israeli Defense Forces have integrated women in direct combat roles as well. It was and is arguably NOT a success, and fully integrated units saw male counterparts having much higher casualty rates than women due to leaders leaving them behind on combat missions (liability), coupled with the ingrained male protectiveness of women.

Hell, a man can now give birth to children- but it doesn't mean he should. We are all created equal. We were not all created the same.

[FishingRod]

So women should have all the rights and privileges but not all the responsibilities. Since they didn’t build it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

So women should have all the rights and privileges but not all the responsibilities. Since they didn’t build it.

What privileges and rights are these?

There are other ways for women to share the responsibilities of defending this nation, including sending her husband and children off to war, supporting the war effort in other areas.

Remember though, only one bull is needed to replace and further human race. This is biological fact. The rest of you are cannon fodder. (See the Walter Block video on social biology in this thread.)

[Cannibal]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Serving in the military is NOT an inalienable right. It's a privilege. The military disqualifies applicants for a number of reasons. This idea that all forms of discrimination are wrong is bogus. Discrimination based on animus is what is wrong. There is no equality of abilities—physical or mental.

Just . If a woman is judged capable to meet the physical and mental requirements to fight and volunteers to do so, she should be able to.

You sitting on your fat ass in front of the computer crying insn't going to change that fact. It's not like you have to fight in a war, so .

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

So women should have all the rights and privileges but not all the responsibilities. Since they didn’t build it.

What privileges and rights are these?

There are other ways for women to share the responsibilities of defending this nation, including sending her husband and children off to war, supporting the war effort in other areas.

Remember though, only one bull is needed to replace and further human race. This is biological fact. The rest of you are cannon fodder. (See the Walter Block video on social biology in this thread.)

The military has the RIGHT to discriminate based on physical abilities or traits for combat. It just happens to be a necessary qualification for doing the job. Pushing buttons—not so much.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

Just . If a woman is judged capable to meet the physical and mental requirements to fight and volunteers to do so, she should be able to.

In your opinion.

You sitting on your fat ass in front of the computer crying insn't going to change that fact. It's not like you have to fight in a war, so .

I see you can't really articulate an argument using reason.

But then I expect this of most smarmy Marxists who want an androgynous society where everyone is the same.

Oh, and I am pretty much anti-war anyway.

[Cannibal]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

In your opinion.



I see you can't really articulate an argument using reason.

But then I expect this of cannon fodder.

Let me say it like this then:

A woman like you, who sits on her ass in front of a computer 16 hours a day espousing loony right wing BS, trying tell a woman who wants to fight in combat that she can't.... is pure bullshit.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

What privileges and rights are these?
.

I would direct you to the Women’s Constitution, amendments and bill of Rights. It is slightly smaller than the men’s version but does smell of lavender.