Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

[uhhello]

Politics is all about values (and power).

Every policy choice a politician votes for is an expression of his values one way or the other. In this case there aren't exactly politicians involved (Panetta was previously but is not currently an elected official, Dempsey et al on the Joint Chiefs of Staff have never held elected office) but that's besides the point. This particular policy choices reflectes a particular set of values that I share.

It's still missing the point...it's not being done because we really need women in these units or because there's somekind of manpower shortage so they figured they'd get a little womanpower or something like that. It's all about A) values -> equality of opportunity and the default should be that there is not discrimination unless there is a verifiable, operational need, and B) reality -> women are already on the front lines in many other positions, why not admit them to "ground combat units" as members of the unit instead of being "attached" like they can be now, assuming they meet the standards of that unit?

Straight from the horse's mouths: Panetta on the values argument,

And Dempsey on the reality argument,

That story is from Dempsey occurred about a decade ago, just to emphasize that women have been serving in positions most reasonable people would consider combat for some time now, right here in our U.S. military.

Dempsey also had the following to say;Gen. Dempsey responded: “f we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/gen-dempsey-hints-bar-likely-lowered-female-combat/#ixzz2J9ZBwZkB

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[nsplayr]

What's wrong with that? If units want to exclude women after the new policy is in place, there should be a valid operational reason. I can think of some units that would likely have valid operational reasons.

So long as the reason isn't "you have to have a dick to be here," and has everything to do with the unit's combat mission and those reasons exist in ways that could not be possibly overcome by a woman, I'm sure they'll have no problem briefing that to the Boss.

Edited January 27, 2013 by nsplayr

[TreeA10]

Just to admit women to a lot of fields and then wash them out due to lack of ability is going to cost a boat load of money. Training slots are limited. Assuming the courses only train as many personnel as needed, adding women that have poor odds of passing means we don't have enough people for the job. Adding slots to add women means we waste limited dollars but we are wasting limited dollars either way. The progressive social justice crowd has not problem with this. I'd like to see women having to sign up for the draft because it would get the 99% of women who don't want to be GI Jane into the argument but I'm sure the same crowd would say that is a waste of resources because not all women want to be in the military.

[Grabby]

Dempsey also had the following to say;Gen. Dempsey responded: “f we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?

Read more: http://www.washingto.../#ixzz2J9ZBwZkB

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

What's wrong with that? If units want to exclude women after the new policy is in place, there should be a valid operational reason. I can think of some units that would likely have valid operational reasons.

Are you fvcking serious? Dude, some of your arguments in the past seemed quasi-plausible based on the fact that you're well read and fairly eloquent, but right now you are showing the true colors of what makes liberals so destructive. What is wrong with what Dempsey said? Well, the fact that prior to this bullshit policy change, not meeting the well-defined standards was a sufficient enough reason to not let males enter specific, frontline career fields where lives are on the line daily. No second guessing the standards, just a well defined line that will separate those who want to be in certain career fields to those who are actually able to hack it.

Day one of UPT we were told we weren't at Disney World, and that no one gave a shit what our dreams were. The only thing that would get us through and into any jet was our ability to study, fly, and be a solid bro. No great military has ever existed as a tool to make dreams come true for wistful youth, yet we are now in a downward spiral bent on curtailing ourselves and our combat effectiveness for the sake of "progression". It's the military. Why the hell is it not OK to still be militant? Entry standards have existed because we were damn good at killing people and those who have BTDT determined what baseline it took to be effective after extensive money and training was later invested. Now those same standards are to be mulled over as possibly too extreme because it negates the weaker sex. UFB.

[afnav]

Women have served in combat (yes, direct combat) for thousands of years.

Women are dying in direct combat in Afghanistan right now.

The few career fields that are being opened to women, aside from grunt infantry, have washout rates so high for males that very few women will even qualify to enter training unless the standards are changed. The standards are there to ensure success in completion of the course, so they are most likely logical to retain.

Seeing this as a social experiment ignores the facts. With no further limitations, one can rightly say that it is an equal opportunity military. Those of us who have served have seen examples to dispute that assertion, but it's an imperfect system.

[Grabby]

This idea that women have served as front line defense for millennia is a bit of a reach. No world-class military has, by choice, utilized women in their front lines. Have they been used as a last resort? Sure. But to try and say that women have proven their ability to fight, face-to-face, efficiently with an all male, highly trained adversary is a farce.

Also, women in the US DoD who are dying in direct combat are dying because they have been engaged by the enemy, not because they have actively sought and engaged the enemy. There is a big difference. One is circumstantial, the other by design.

[AnimalMother]

Is there an emoticon for the slow head shake accompanied by the disappointed frown?

[disgruntledemployee]

Politics is all about values (and power).

Every policy choice a politician votes for is an expression of his values one way or the other. In this case there aren't exactly politicians involved (Panetta was previously but is not currently an elected official, Dempsey et al on the Joint Chiefs of Staff have never held elected office) but that's besides the point. This particular policy choices reflectes a particular set of values that I share.

Nope. Politics is all about power. Values are used as tools to wield that power, maintain that power, and grow that power. These are the real reasons behind the decision.

But I guess our politicans and leaders don't mind a few more dead women to grow their power. No matter what the military units do, political pressures will win and women will move in to units where they probably shouldn't be. People will die and this will be a factor. I hope you are happy with your position on this issue.

Out

[AnimalMother]

Nsplayr, if you consider not having any values a type of value, then I'll more or less agree with you (but that would sound like fascism wouldn't it?) If not, disgruntledemployee has it right. Politics is about power and the ability to use it.

[nsplayr]

Are you fvcking serious?

Yes.

What is wrong with what Dempsey said? Well, the fact that prior to this bullshit policy change, not meeting the well-defined standards was a sufficient enough reason to not let males enter specific, frontline career fields where lives are on the line daily.

And that will not change, Panetta specifically addresses this in his comment. The standards are what they are and if there if no woman can meet real, necessary standards then so be it. BUT, one standard that exists right now for ground combat units is "must have penis" and that standard should and is going away. Those standards may change over time and that's a continual process that's up to whoever is in command of those units and that training and as I'm sure you know, a big part of deciding what is and is not acceptable performance on a given task is the professional judgement of the instructor overseeing that person. Instructors and evaluators teach and safeguard the minimum standards, so that's where the execution portion of a policy change like this comes in to play.

I hope you are happy with your position on this issue.

You seem extremely cynical, can't say I share your level of pessimism on why humans act the way they do but whatever. I am quite happy with my position on this issue, thanks for hoping for the best in that case at least.

I'm looking forward to a picture on the cover of Military Times/CNN of the first all-female combat infantry unit. If individual women can be just as capable as men in combat, then a unit consisting of these women would, therefore, be just as effective.

I guess that's possible, it certainly solves some of the logistical questions (i.e. mixing genders in sleeping quarters/latrines with limited resources). It happened in the civil war and WWII with black soldiers and guess what, they did just fine and now no one questions if people of different races can work together on the front lines. Maybe this policy needs to take the same route as your suggest, who knows.

...because training standards don't necessarily reflect actual combat requirements.

This is a great point that I think people are missing when they look at the PT test and see different standards for men and women. What's the purpose of the PT test? Public health management; it has nothing to do with combat fitness. I'm a huge fan of getting rid of the pushups/pullups/situps/run style of fitness tests for everyone of all genders in all branches in favor of more functional tests of fitness more applicable to one's job, but that's another battle.

The Marines have a separate combat fitness test, with the components meant to simulate actual battlefield-necessary tasks. Let the standards for ground combat units be linked to that, as well as passing the accessions course, marksmanship, etc. etc. Not sure why they have different standards for men and women on that test (I would think it should be the same), but I'm not a Marine so I don't really know what's required.

Nsplayr, if you consider not having any values a type of value, then I'll more or less agree with you (but that would sound like fascism wouldn't it?) If not, disgruntledemployee has it right. Politics is about power and the ability to use it.

Not sure I understand...everyone has values, everyone has things they find have value and things they don't. Even fascist or whatever group you think is totally worthless does have values, they're just values you don't agree with. Even a terrible, mentally deranged person may value control and order and suffering or whatever other sick sh*t they think is "good," those things become your values.

Back in the world of normal people, almost every policy disagreement not born out of interpersonal conflict (i.e. I just hate that guy so f*ck his idea) can be traced back to a disagreement on values. To tie it back to national politics, do you value you liberty or security? Do you value justice or compassion? Do you value individualism or collective action? Do you value sticking to your guns (sts) or finding compromise?

Obviously those are not either/or questions, but your answers to them, when applied to a specific issue, will determine what you support and what you don't support policy-wise. That's what I'm talking about when I say politics is all about values.

Edited January 27, 2013 by nsplayr

[AnimalMother]

A little tongue in cheek there.

Values are a characteristic of humanity, not politics per se. Politics is the game of imposing (by force if necessary) your "values" on others.

[Guest one]

Just to admit women to a lot of fields and then wash them out due to lack of ability is going to cost a boat load of money. Training slots are limited. Assuming the courses only train as many personnel as needed, adding women that have poor odds of passing means we don't have enough people for the job. Adding slots to add women means we waste limited dollars but we are wasting limited dollars either way. The progressive social justice crowd has no problem with this. I'd like to see women having to sign up for the draft because it would get the 99% of women who don't want to be GI Jane into the argument but I'm sure the same crowd would say that is a waste of resources because not all women want to be in the military.

This is true but my logic is, a lot of men fail, why not let a few women fail. We obviously don’t need women in these roles but let’s humor them for the sake of EO. The Air Force wasn’t hurting for fighter pilots before letting women fill those roles but they changed policy for political reasons. The navy doesn’t need women on subs but they are changings things for political reasons. I don't know how many people go to ranger school every year but let’s say 3000 men graduate every year. That would mean over 3000 men fail. If you have 2 women graduate and 98 fail who cares? This type of training always has a high fail rate. The key is to weed out the weak links at the very start of training. In Ranger school they have the Ranger assessment phase that washes out the most people.

The training spots for these programs are not so limited that they could not add a few qualified women every year. Before going to this type of training you have to meet many different physical standards and even those who meet those standards fail out of Ranger school %50-%60 of the time. If you make women meet a standard that only the top 1% of female soldiers can meet before going to Ranger school you avoid having females that have zero chance. How much does it cost to give a thorough PT test to women at their base? A 100 women per year going through Ranger school would cost very little in comparison to the amount of men that would be physically qualified to attend.

[Tank]

Anybody catch LtGen Boykin and McChing's debate on FoxNews today around 1300 CST? It was a good one...

[afnav]

This idea that women have served as front line defense for millennia is a bit of a reach. No world-class military has, by choice, utilized women in their front lines. Have they been used as a last resort? Sure. But to try and say that women have proven their ability to fight, face-to-face, efficiently with an all male, highly trained adversary is a farce.

Also, women in the US DoD who are dying in direct combat are dying because they have been engaged by the enemy, not because they have actively sought and engaged the enemy. There is a big difference. One is circumstantial, the other by design.

I was certainly not implying that they have been used (alone) against a front-line adversary. I was merely stating that they have served efficiently in direct combat. You are cherry-picking my comments. It took years before anyone in the DoD referred to the Taliban as a highly-trained adversary. Look it up.

There are no major differences in the current modern battlefield. If you serve in convoy duty, which many women have, you are in front-line combat. Many more are receiving direct or indirect fire in their compounds. This is not WWI trench warfare, which will likely not be fought again until during the war following a major nuclear exchange.

Edited January 28, 2013 by afnav

[Fuzz]

I was certainly not implying that they have been used (alone) against a front-line adversary. I was merely stating that they have served efficiently in direct combat. You are cherry-picking my comments. It took years before anyone in the DoD referred to the Taliban as a highly-trained adversary. Look it up.

There are no major differences in the current modern battlefield. If you serve in convoy duty, which many women have, you are in front-line combat. Many more are receiving direct or indirect fire in their compounds. This is not WWI trench warfare, which will likely not be fought again until during the war following a major nuclear exchange.

There's difference between leading a convoy going from base to base, or Baghdad Airport to the Green zone, and living in a FOB going out into the mountains hunting the Taliban, or spending weeks going building to building in Fallujah.

[Guest one]

Anybody catch LtGen Boykin and McChing's debate on FoxNews today around 1300 CST? It was a good one...

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/jerry-boykin-feels-humiliated-man-women-comb

Edited January 28, 2013 by one

[Wolf424]

Lastly, we need to document the results by giving as many journalists as possible the opportunity to be embedded with the unit.

You think the American public has trouble stomaching combat loses now, just wait until we start losing women on the front line on a daily basis. So far, less than 50 of our KIA (out of over 2,000) in OEF have been women.

Bottom line: make the standards the same. End of story.

[spaceman]

Is there an emoticon for the slow head shake accompanied by the disappointed frown?

You can use this if you want

[Guest]

Anybody catch LtGen Boykin and McChing's debate on FoxNews today around 1300 CST? It was a good one...

Some quotes.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2013/01/27/retired-us-officers-react-pentagon-lifting-ban-women-combat

BOYKIN:

>My issue here is, mixing the genders in infantry units, armored units and Special Forces units is not a positive. There are many distracters there which put a burden on small unit combat leaders and actually creates an environment because of their living conditions that is not conducive to readiness.

>Do we draft women? Do we release them from the service for pregnancy? Where does it go? Where does it ultimately go? They are in combat and they should be in combat and we should find opportunities, just like with Colonel McSally for them to serve in combat. I'm talking about infantry, armored, Special Forces, those units where I object.

>What I have raised is the issue of mixing the genders in those combat units where there is no privacy, where they are out on extended operations, and there's no opportunity for people to have any privacy whatsoever. Now, as a man who has been there, and a man who has some experience in these kinds of units, I certainly don't want to be in that environment with a female because it's degrading and humiliating enough to do your personal hygiene and other normal functions among your teammates.

MCSALLY:

>...we need to treat people like individuals. What are the capabilities they bring to the fight? Which includes physical strength, plus courage, plus aptitude, plus leadership and, all the other things we need to have the most effective fighting force.

>So, we are a country that sets standards and then allows people to compete as individuals and if they bring the better soldier to the fight, then women should be able to compete on equal ground. I'm not talking about changing standards; I'm talking about allowing people to be considered for what they bring to the fight.

>The Pentagon estimated a few years ago, that 75 percent of 17 to 24-year-olds are not even qualified to be in the military. So we are recruiting from 25 percent of the population, 15 percent of them go on to college. So we need to recruit from 100 percent of the population in order to make sure we have the most effective fighting force.

>Privacy is a red herring. You can figure out the privacy issues, as long as you have the most capable, qualified force. That should be no reason for exclusionary policies.

>Some of our closest allies have figured it out for many years. Canada is the best example. They've had women fully integrated into the combat forces.

>...when you have an environment where women are treated as sort of second class warriors -- they can, you know, do almost anything but not quite the elite jobs, not out there doing what really brings about promotions and leadership positions and really what matters in the military the most -- you create this subconscious feeling that, you know, women are not quite equal with the men. And, so, that adds to our problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Sexual assault is a very complex issue. But the way to address it obviously is finding those who are the criminals and make sure we rat them out of the military. You don't avoid the issue by keeping women out of those units, because those men are assaulters, they're going to assault civilians and others they come into contact to.

>This is about military effectiveness. The 230,000 positions that were previously closed, only a fraction of them are Special Forces and infantry. And the rest are a whole variety of other jobs that have been closed to women. If we want the most effective fighting force, we need to pick the most qualified capable man for the job, even if it's a woman.

NOTE: THESE ARE EXCERPTS OF A BROADER DISCUSSION. PLEASE REVIEW THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL AT YOUR DISCRETION.

[FallingOsh]

http://videocafe.cro...-man-women-comb

[Learjetter]

Nuff said?

http://victorygirlsblog.com/?p=9585

[HuggyU2]

To Wreck a Military--Martin van Creveld

[This essay will appear today in the Small Wars Journal. As some of you may know, Prof. van Crevald is a preeminent Israeli military analyst and historian. ]

In 1968, the U.S. Armed Forces numbered 3,500,000 troops. Of those, just over one percent were female. Back in 1948 Congress, by passing Public Law No. 625, had capped the number of military women at two percent of that total. Those who did wear uniforms were limited to a very small number of Military Occupation Specialties. No military woman could be deployed abroad against her will. The highest rank any woman could attain was that of colonel. However, change was in the air. As the War in Vietnam peaked, the Johnson administration feared, with very good reason, that trying to call up more men might meet with massive resistance. It might even lead to civil war. Casting about for a solution to the problem, one measure the military took was to try and attract more women. That was how the latter got their feet in the door.

The decision to admit more women proved to be the opening shot in the gender wars in the military. Supported by the courts, which consistently insisted on “equal rights,” throughout the 1970s and 1980s female service personnel demanded, and were granted, greater and greater rights. The more time passed, the less inclined the forces to resist their triumphant march and the more they tended to roll over at the first sign of a feminist demand. To note a few landmark decisions only, in 1976 the Service Academies were opened to women. In the same year, women retained the right to remain in the services even when they were pregnant and, as a consequence, unable to perform some of the jobs to which they were assigned. The 1991 Tailhook debacle represented the worst defeat of the U.S. Navy since Pearl Harbor. In the next year, President Bush's Commission for Women in Combat solemnly recommended that they not be allowed to participate in it. However, no sooner did President Clinton assume office than the decision was reversed. Women were allowed to fly combat aircraft, crew warships, and participate in ground operations down to the brigade level.

Even as the forces were feminized, they also became progressively smaller. By the time the Cold War ended, the number or troops was down to 2,050,000. Of those, about 8.5 percent were female. Later, the number of troops was cut even further, to 1,400,000. As part of the process, the share of women rose to between 16 and 17 percent. It was with this force that the U.S. went to war first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Now that incoming Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel wants to carry out further drastic cuts, the last barriers to women's participation in every kind of unit and activity are about to be demolished. Meanwhile, though the ratio of population to uniformed soldiers has gone down from 55:1 to 227:1, so unattractive has military service become that the forces have been reduced to recruiting tens of thousands of non-citizens. In many cases so low is their quality that, once they have been recruited, the first thing they must learn is how to read.

Looking back, clearly what we see is two long-term processes running in parallel. The first is the decline of U.S armed forces (as well as all other Western ones, but that is not our topic here). The second is their growing feminization. Critics will object that, even as they were being downsized, the forces went through one qualitative improvement after another. In particular, the so-called “Revolution in Military Affairs” is supposed to have increased their fighting power many times over. That, however, is an illusion. To realize this, all one has to do is look at Afghanistan. Over there, “illiterate” tribesmen—not, take note, tribeswomen—are right now about to force the U.S. to withdraw its troops after a decade of effort in which they achieved hardly anything.

Are the two processes linked? You bet they are. Consider a work by two female professors, Barbara F. Reskin and Patricia A. Roos, with the title Job Queues, Gender Queues. First published in 1990, it has since been quoted no fewer than 1,274 times. As they and countless other researchers, both male and female, have shown, over time the more women that join any organization, and the more important the role they play in that organization, the more its prestige declines in the eyes of both men and women. Loss of prestige leads to diminishing economic rewards; diminishing economic rewards lead to loss of prestige. As any number of historical examples has shown, the outcome is a vicious cycle. Can anybody put forward a reason why the U.S. military should be an exception to the rule?

Are the processes welcome? That depends on your point of view. If the reason for having armed forces is to guarantee national security, then the answer is clearly no. By one count, almost one third of enlisted military women are single mothers. As a result, whatever the regulations may say, they are only deployable within limits. Adding to the problems, at any one time, one tenth of all servicewomen are certain to be pregnant. That again means that there are limits on what they can do on the job. Women are unable to compete with men when it comes to the kind of work that requires physical fitness. Those who try to do so nevertheless are almost certain to suffer a wholly disproportionate number of injuries. As a result, the part of their training troops of both sexes spend together often borders in the ridiculous and represents a gross waste of resources. Furthermore, women’s retention rate is lower than that of men on the average. As a result, bringing them to the point where they are qualified to do their jobs also represents a gross waste of resources.

Last not least, as figures from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show, relative to their number military women are 90 percent less likely to be killed than military men. In other militaries around the world, incidentally, women’s share among the casualties is much lower still. Uniformed women, in other words, are not pulling their weight. Whether this is because public opinion will not stand for large numbers of dead servicewomen or because the women themselves have found a thousand ways to avoid going where the bullets are is immaterial. Probably both factors play a role. Instead of fighting, women get all the cushy jobs. For anyone who serves in the military, or whose livelihood depends on public approval, the prevailing climate of political correctness makes it impossible to mention the problem even in a whisper. Obviously, though, it is bound to have some effects on the morale of male personnel.

One may also look at the problem in a different way. Over the last few decades people have become accustomed to think of the feminization of the military as if it were some great and mighty step towards women's liberation. In fact, it is nothing of the kind. For thousands, probably tens of thousands of years, we men have laid down our lives so that the women we love might live. To quote the Trojan hero Hector on this, he preferred going to hell a thousand times to seeing his wife, Andromache, weeping as she was led into captivity by one of the "copper-wearing Greeks." Wouldn’t it be truly wonderful if the tables were turned and women started laying down their lives for us? After all, people of both sexes live in a democracy where women form a majority of the population. Why, then, shouldn’t they die in proportion to their numbers?

In fact, as the number of troops of both sexes who are killed shows only too clearly, women’s presence in the military is little but an expensive charade. True equality—equality of the kind that will make service personnel of both sexes take the same risks and suffer the same casualties—is as far away as it has ever been. Everything considered, perhaps it is better that way.

[AnimalMother]

He chooses to use our failures in Afghanistan as evidence of the declining efficacy of our military, which he links to the growing percentage of females. How then does he reconcile our performance in Vietnam? I don't like having women in the military, but neither they, nor gays, nor navs are the root cause of our modern woes, they are merely symptoms of much larger, systemic problems.

And Canada certainly has this one figured out, their advon combat unit is a Tim Hortons on wheels, which they asked us to transport for them.

Edit to add additional spear.

Edited January 29, 2013 by AnimalMother

[nsplayr]

Overall his thesis just doesn't make sense...basically that we let women in and the whole U.S. military went to shit. I'd argue we're stronger today compared to our enemies than at anytime previously in our nation's history. And to say service in today's U.S. military is "so unattractive" that we have to let in illiterate immigrants...not sure what retention and education numbers he's looking at.

[AnimalMother]

Overall his thesis just doesn't make sense...basically that we let women in and the whole U.S. military went to shit. I'd argue we're stronger today compared to our enemies than at anytime previously in our nation's history. And to say service in today's U.S. military is "so unattractive" that we have to let in illiterate immigrants...not sure what retention and education numbers he's looking at.

Not sure if you have read Bleeding Talent yet, but he addresses the common notion that military recruits are uneducated bottom 15 percenters, and categorically disproves it. And, while walking around an Army base will certainly make you second guess it, I think you have to compare that to walking around some of our nations finest educational institutions.