Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

[nsplayr]

Story here.

From the article:

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.

Edited January 23, 2013 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

I'm sure there won't be 2 different standards...oh wait, we already have 2 different standards.

[Fuzz]

So whats the over/under on the first female special forces candidate??

[Toro]

So whats the over/under on the first female special forces candidate??

Whatever it is, the AF Times will let us know 6-9 minutes after it happens.

[Gravedigger]

So whats the over/under on the first female special forces candidate??

Already happened:

This was a documentary right?

[discus]

Story here.

From the article:

What the hell were you doing reading Fox News?

[Butters]

I just heard leadership is out inspecting all front lines combat areas for any materials that might be unprofessional or present a hostile work environment. Additionally, unprofessional language will no long be tolerated in combat situations. (i.e "fuck me, they are shooting at us).

[Fuzz]

(i.e "fuck me, they are shooting at us).

yeah I can see that being turned into sexual harassment, "I can't believe he told me too, while we were being shot at"

[Apollo]

yeah I can see that being turned into sexual harassment, "I can't believe he told me too, while we were being shot at"

Something tells me the chicks signing up for combat duty aren't the ones leading the charge on hyper-sensitivity.

[hardie9e]

Something tells me the chicks signing up for combat duty aren't the ones leading the charge on hyper-sensitivity.

That checks

[Butters]

That checks

No, it does not "check", leadership will be hypersensitive for them. Soon they will ban all forms of violence in combat to make it a safe work environment for women.

[Fuzz]

Something tells me the chicks signing up for combat duty aren't the ones leading the charge on hyper-sensitivity.

I know most of them won't be, but I can see a bunch of feminazis rushing to "prove" women are equal. If they had to meet the same requirements as men, I could semi-support it.

[M2]

[Prosuper]

Hey! Don't forget forget all the support jobs when it comes to the PT test or physical standards, if I got to do X number of repetitions of a exercise and run a certain time for my age why does it have to gender specific. Sit ups or push ups should be equal and stop telling men we are stronger and faster and should do more than women. Lets make all weight,height and physical standards in all the same in all the branches. Equality!!!!

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm glad I'm not the one that has to tell them they they have to start signing up for the draft.

[Smokin]

We've had women in the military for years without having to sign up for the draft, why would that change now just because a few more jobs open up? Double standards are only bad when white men benefit from them; as long as minorities or 'oppressed' people benefit, they're fine.

[KState_Poke22]

The Marines already tried this, they put women in their Infabtry Officer Course to test it out....and every single one of them failed out.

There's a great interview (can't find it now) of a female Marine officer who was logistics I think but was running convoys and getting in firefights and doing frontline infantry stuff, she said she was in every bit as in shape as the males yet by the end of the deployment she was completely beaten down and her body just couldn't take it.

[nsplayr]

The Marines already tried this, they put women in their Infabtry Officer Course to test it out....and every single one of them failed out.

There's a great interview (can't find it now) of a female Marine officer who was logistics I think but was running convoys and getting in firefights and doing frontline infantry stuff, she said she was in every bit as in shape as the males yet by the end of the deployment she was completely beaten down and her body just couldn't take it.

Good on the Marines for leading the way on this, they're ahead of the SECEDF's direction so are potentially better positioned to know what to expect compared with the Army or smaller Navy/AF ground components.

If they fail out or can't hack it then thanks for playing and in that story it talks about how those women's feedback was that it was harder than they imagined. In practice it may be hard to uphold the standards yet keep everybody happy (and lawsuit free!) but in theory if someone can hack the standards there's no good enough reason to bar them simply because of their gender.

I'm hopeful the services can figure out a way to make it work like they always have whenever stuff like this has come up in the past.

[tac airlifter]

I'm all for it, equality across the board! I'll expect same PT test of course, and selective service enrollment too. Once we prove the virtues of institutionally forced equality I can't wait to see the rest of our society follow suit...... I'm looking forward to male v female boxing. And prisons too, since the sexes are equal in all regards its just stupid to have 'separate but equal facilities.' Plus it saves $ in these times of fiscal austerity. I'm sure the girls will manage just fine with the crips and skinheads. They are 100% the physical equals of men.

Edit to add: don't take my post seriously, I know it's a complex multifaceted issue and I know women are already flying and fighting. I honestly have no opinion about the ground thing since I have no experience as a ground guy!

Edited January 24, 2013 by tac airlifter

[slc]

I wonder if Pararescue will open up the door. Pentagon classifies them as front-line.

[slackline]

I wonder if Pararescue will open up the door. Pentagon classifies them as front-line.

They'll be in the same exact boat as SEALs, Delta, Green Berets, etc. Curious to see how they'll handle that group.

[nsplayr]

...Delta...

I can only assume this is who you mean:

[slackline]

I can only assume this is who you mean:

If that's the case, it might be easier for them to qualify. Some of them, and not most of the ones I've seen in the military...

[KState_Poke22]

They'll be in the same exact boat as SEALs, Delta, Green Berets, etc. Curious to see how they'll handle that group.

Speaking of Green Berets, any of you who have read Yellow Green Beret (vol 2 I think) have seen a perfect example of why women in frontline combat roles is not a good idea.

[HuggyU2]

but in theory if someone can hack the standards there's no good enough reason to bar them simply because of their gender.

Completely disagree. This "equality" doesn't work in the extreme situations found in many combat units, because it violates "societal norms". And when you violate the "societal norms" of the people within that unit, I believe no good can come of it. Here's just 1 example (from today's Wall Street Journal):

The Reality That Awaits Women In Combat

A Pentagon push to mix the sexes ignores how awful cheek-by-jowl life is on the battlefield.

By Ryan Smith

America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.

Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?

Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.

Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.

Mr. Smith served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. He is now an attorney.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Huggyu2