Pentagon to remove ban on women in combat

Submitted by on

Printer-friendly version

Author: 

Blog About: 

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

Looks like we will finally see some action. Didn't think this happy so soon.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon...

Comments

Congress

Submitted by on

When did congress change the law restricting women in combat?

Mark

Answer

Submitted by on

Quite a while ago. I was still a member of the U.S. Military when that came down. It was delegated down to the Pentagon to determine if women would be allowed to enter combat-arms positions.

Absolutely opposed to it !

Submitted by on

Being of mid 19th century sentiment, I am completely opposed to women in combat, or even in the military at all! I realize that lots of women want to do combat, but I have seen enough men come back messed up from combat that I never want to face such hurt and brokenness in a woman full stop.

Gwendolyn

Who's to say

Submitted by on

Extravagance's picture

that ALL women will be worse affected by "hurt and brokenness" than a man would?
We come to this online community to GET AWAY from people who deny us our civil rights, and look what I just found...
Nobody's shoving a helmet on YOUR head, an assault rifle in YOUR hands, and sticking YOU in a warzone. If there are women who WANT to fight for their country, who are you to say they can't? :(

Catfolk Pride.PNG

I have to say I'm all for

Submitted by on

I have to say I'm all for this. Women should have just as much of a chance to fight for their country as men do. Being of the generation that is now in the military I can tell you just like most (not all) not caring if the person fighting next to them is gay, they don't care if she is a women either. Women have been fighting in combat anyways as MP's and in other positions that can be in combat situations just as intense as on the front lines and as far as I have seen there hasn't been any problems. It is also important to note that the physical requirements for different positions in the military have not been lowered so you will not have women out there that can not do the job just as well physically as a man.

Some will say thay physical

Submitted by on

elrodw's picture

Some will say thay physical requirements HAVE been lowered already. I'm not outright against it, but it will absolutely create issues in combat exercises, where there is no privacy, and cannot be any. There's also the issue the Navy faced in both gulf wars - deliberate pregnancy to avoid or get out of a combat zone. That leaves those left extra work to pick up.

As to flag rank, have you ever heard of Adm Grace Hopper? Lack of combat exp didn't slow her career.

Most nations that have had women in combat roles have withdrawn them after actual combat experience (usually quietly). Since the military's primary role is safeguarding our liberty, I'd prefer it not be considered a social laboratory. There's a big difference between a Fortune 500 company and the military when it comes to consequences of failure, and thus I am skeptical that this is a good idea.

Naturally, my opinion will piss off some, but it's still a free country, and I'm still permitted to argue the non-PC side in a rational debate ...

Imagination is more important than knowledge
A. Einstein

One out of how many?

Submitted by on

Admirals and generals. And she never had a chance to be a member of the Joint Chiefs either. You are right on one thing, I do disagree with you. Women are as capable of making the tough decisions as men, providing they get the training and experience. Parts of your comment are insulting to all women, not just women in the military. And that's all I'll say about that.

"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin

You also have male soldiers

Submitted by on

You also have male soldiers who have 'accidents' and shoot themselves in the foot to get out of combat zones. It's going to happen with both genders. Since we have an all volunteer army both men and women will get into it knowing that they will face combat. I have seen nothing that shows that women are more likely than men chicken out when it comes time to put up or shut up.

I haven't heard before that most nations that have had women in combat roles have withdrawn them, can you name a few so I can read up on this. I'm always willing to change my mind with new facts.

As for it being a social laboratory, isn't the same kind of argument against gays or minorities in the military? besides which this is just making official what has already happened. Women have been serving in combat positions for years unofficially and there have been no problems, so the social experiment has been a success and no longer is an experiment.

No one says your not permitted to argue the non-PC side, hell most times I'm the one doing that myself. ;)

Physical Requirements

Submitted by on

Maintaining high standards is key. Therefore, few females will qualify to be infantry. However, few definitely does not mean none. Those women who want to be in the infantry and have the physical tools for that GRUELING job should not be automatically excluded.

While a high level of physical fitness is mandatory for military personnel, an individual does not have to be a "specimen" to pilot aircraft or drive a tank. Let the ladies try, should they want to.

I suspect George Patton would have been initially taken aback by (4 star) General Dunwoody. However, his glance would have been quickly drawn to her master parachutist and rigger badges, along with the ribbons, etc. While the man most definitely had his prejudices, he was also a ruthless pragmatist that respected fighting qualities in anybody.

G/R

I'm for it!

Submitted by on

For two reasons. First: Because artificial rules should not hold women back from anything we desire to do. Physical abilities might be a problem, but that can and should be dealt with on an individual basis.

Second: A major obstacle to women getting flag rank and rising to the highest positions in the military is that these ranks and positions require combat commands in the person's background. If you can't serve in combat, you can't command in combat. And you'll never rise to the level of Joint Chiefs if you haven't have served in a combat command situation.

This is another glass ceiling to be broken. We are as good as men, we need to be able to show it.

"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin

I'm not totally in agreement with Tom Kratzman, but ...

Submitted by on

I just finished reading his essay on Ben Books Free Nonfiction 2011, which is available from Baen Books.

The URL is http://www.baenebooks.com/p-1386-free-nonfiction-2011.aspx

The Essay is 'The Amazon's Right Breast'. Kratzman is a retired Army Officer, and he has some very strong opinions on this issue. He makes some good points, but I am far from being in total agreement with him.

There are a number of other free ebooks available from baen, all of which can be downloaded in a number of formats, for Kindle, Nook, or other eReaders, or as .RTF files to be read inn most word processors.

Many women now fly in the latest versions of the P3 Navy patrol planes I flew in during VietNam, and we flew combat missions, those they were generally pretty mild. My crew did get shot at with a machine gun once while off the coast, and another crew picked up a couple of bullet holes. Two planes in another squadron may have been shot down while off the Cambodian coast, but they just disappeared and were not found in time to be sure what happened, as most of the wreckage was not recovered.

But at that time, women were not allowed on flight crews because we might be in combat, and we did use some offensive armament two times, (rockets once and a bomb the other time), but there is/was no reason in my mind that women would not have performed just as well.

Holly

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

Holly

More like this