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

[CrazyPhuD]

Personally I don't get why people have an issue with this(ok ok I get why people can but not why they should). Sure there are a number of potential concerns with women being in combat, but should we discriminate against them because of what 'could' happen or because of what is likely to happen?

If you ban them from combat because of what 'might' happen to them, is that philosophically different than banning certain firearms because they 'might' be used improperly?

If we discriminate against something it should be because the harm is 'likely' to happen, because frankly anything 'might' happen but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't.

From a practical point of view however, little is expected to change at this point. Why? Many of the women who have tried combat infantry training have dropped out in the end. One of the primary reasons they have done so is because they found that, while they could do the same level of work in short bursts, their bodies broke down much faster and more frequently than men. It's the simple physiological differences, that will be the limiter to them taking a more active role in combat.

Will there be extraordinary women who can meet the physical challenges? Absolutely and they should be encouraged to do so, but from a practical stance I don't expect much to change from this. The greatest concern I have is that we become so focused on trying to get women into roles they may not be physically suited for that we lower standards of performance so much that we impact capabilities.

But then again, in 10-20 years our military will be composed of only special forces and robots so maybe it doesn't matter.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

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.

Well put.

[Iowanian]

Executive Order #2.
All menstruating solders will serve in the BIG RED 1.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

I hate war. The gender fighting it is pretty much meaningless to me. Israel has female compulsory service. Be interesting to see now that they can if any of them will actually step up and volunteer.

That too.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

Executive Order #2.
All menstruating solders will serve in the BIG RED 1.

Will Obama use the dead women as examples of the republican war on women?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

Oh I get it.

Go to http://www.google.com/

Then type the Constitution , amendments and bill of rights.

No you don't get it, plus I already know that material.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Now Dave can enroll in the military

Perfect come back.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

Personally I don't get why people have an issue with this(ok ok I get why people can but not why they should). Sure there are a number of potential concerns with women being in combat, but should we discriminate against them because of what 'could' happen or because of what is likely to happen?

If you ban them from combat because of what 'might' happen to them, is that philosophically different than banning certain firearms because they 'might' be used improperly?

If we discriminate against something it should be because the harm is 'likely' to happen, because frankly anything 'might' happen but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't.

From a practical point of view however, little is expected to change at this point. Why? Many of the women who have tried combat infantry training have dropped out in the end. One of the primary reasons they have done so is because they found that, while they could do the same level of work in short bursts, their bodies broke down much faster and more frequently than men. It's the simple physiological differences, that will be the limiter to them taking a more active role in combat.

Will there be extraordinary women who can meet the physical challenges? Absolutely and they should be encouraged to do so, but from a practical stance I don't expect much to change from this. The greatest concern I have is that we become so focused on trying to get women into roles they may not be physically suited for that we lower standards of performance so much that we impact capabilities.

But then again, in 10-20 years our military will be composed of only special forces and robots so maybe it doesn't matter.

There's nothing wrong with discrimination. Only when it's based on animus. You discriminate daily and so do the rest of us. It's vital to making decisions and survival.

"equality is what does not exist among equals."- e.e.cummings

Only in socialism, which is what Israel is.

[BucEyedPea]

Israel, a socialist country, is one of the few that draft or have mandatory military service, because they are always at war with their neighbors. Fact is their policy has been an evolving one. By Israel’s own admission, allowing women in combat was not successful but actually a disaster. Israel and Woman in Combat circa 2001 ( See next post.)

So it was done away with or changed, except that there were some supreme court rulings which was also followed by new legislation.

The Equality Amendment to the Military Service law, enacted in January 2000, completed the Supreme Court ruling as it defined the right of female soldiers to volunteer for combat professions. This law stated that "The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men."[14] The amendment drafted by female lawmakers granted equal opportunities to women found physically and personally suitable for a job. The question of who and what was "suitable" was left to the discretion of military leaders on a case-by-case basis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Israel

Remember, The Israeli Declaration of Independence states:

“The State of Israel (…) will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.”

Complete equality is a socialist idea and Israel's socialism is subordinate to the nation. At any rate, I don't see why we should copy any other nation's policies. I think this change has more to do with the military not being able to meet its recruitment levels. Hence, why they also have recruited criminals from gangs.

[BucEyedPea]

I know some lefties will criticize the source of this article but it's not the first one I have read on women in combat. Just the fastest I could find. I think the first one was on Eagle Forum but I will have to check. And, yes, this is an older article, but it shows Israel's evolution on the matter and doesn't change how successful it was or not.

History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.

“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.

Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces:

“Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/#7g1xwZ9JTL8K3hJO.99

Like I said, supreme court cases and other legislation followed.

[BucEyedPea]

Yeah, equality, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

I have seen small 5'5" 110lbs men be required to lift a piece of equipment into the nose of an aircraft that weighs 75-85lbs by themselves and if they can't do it they are told to hit the gym and get to the gally and eat more to put more muscle on or get out while women that are 5'10" and 160lbs are given help and understanding....Our military would have few if any women if there truly were equal treatment from day one . Women are not required to run the mile and a half as fast as men or do as many pushups , situps etc. depending on the branch of service. Why do you think there has never been a female Navy Seal, Green Beret, Marine Recon Special forces? Because these special units do not drop their standards for anyone regardless of Race, Sex, or Religion. These units give truly equal treatment to everyone...~ by a former U.S Navy man

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/200...30-RR2.shtml#2

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Article

The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected.

[Brock]

It's a bad idea, just like making women cops and firefighters.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Yeah, equality, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!



http://www.eagleforum.org/column/200...30-RR2.shtml#2

Panetta and the Joint Chiefs Chairman stated today they aren't going to drop standards but we will see. If a woman can do the same standard as men then there really shouldn't be a problem. I think the issue is how they are going to incorporate the women into infantry platoons. That is going to be the real challenge.

[RNR]

If they are going to be treated equal then run them through the same exact training with same exact physical requirements~