Panetta lifts Pentagon ban on women serving in direct combat

posted at 5:11 pm on January 23, 2013 by Allahpundit

Dan Foster has the right idea. No more excuses, ladies. It’s time.

Just this morning I was thinking that abortion and gay marriage had gotten a bit stale as fodder for really nasty, bitter culture-war bloodsport. Luckily, Obama and Leon Panetta are here to keep things interesting.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting 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

Panetta’s move expands the Pentagon’s action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to units on the front lines.

The AP says Panetta’s order will involve “allowing women to seek the combat positions,” which isn’t remotely the same as ordering women who are already in the service to the front lines. Sounds like the opportunity will be there for women soldiers if and when they want it — although as women serving in the infantry becomes more common, it’s bound to create peer pressure on women troops who don’t necessarily want to go to the front but feel obliged to. Oh well. CNN has more on how this differs from the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In short, there’s no “special exemption” available to a unit that concludes it can’t/won’t integrate gay troops:

The Army and Marine Corps, especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report back on their progress…

[The policy] is a marked difference from the way the military ended the exclusion of gays serving openly, or “don’t ask don’t tell.” In that case, there were no stipulations attached to openly gay service members. There was no staggered approach that integrated openly gay troops into units. It was instead done all at once, across the board.

A senior Defense official explained the Pentagon’s reasoning behind the different approach: “You’re talking about personal choice of behavior vs. physical capability. And they were already in the units. If you take a unit that’s never had women before, that’s quite a culture change.”

Women already serve in combat support roles and have been killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan but this is the first time they’ll be placed intentionally in the line of enemy fire. It was a fait accompli, though. Ever since DADT was repealed, activists had eyed this as the next frontier in equality inside the military. The Pentagon bowed to pressure early last year by allowing women troops to serve in non-combat roles as part of battalions, which put them closer to the front lines. More than one poll has showed majority support for letting women serve in combat, and other allied militaries, like Australia and the IDF, already make some combat roles available to women. The question wasn’t whether this might happen, it’s how broad the new policy would end up being. Volunteers only or mandatory service for all women who are fit to serve on the front lines? Special Ops duties too or are the physical requirements too onerous? Israel has already lowered its standards for female combat troops, although allegedly that has less to do with physical challenges than with women wanting to serve in more tech-heavy roles.

Not all vets support the idea, of course. Here’s a piece written last year by a former infantry officer making the case against women infantry on grounds that close combat will simply prove too brutal for many of them; here’s another by a female officer who warns that long duty in the field is likely to prove too physically grueling. The X factor at the moment is what Chuck Hagel thinks, but I doubt we’ll ever really know: Even if he disagrees with the policy change, there’s no earthly way he didn’t already sign onto it behind closed doors with Obama as a concession to Democrats, who are giddy about the change and lukewarm about his nomination. He’ll rubber-stamp it whether he wants to or not.

Exit question for opponents of the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars: How excited are you to have a giant new pool of soldiers available to make future wars that much more feasible?

Update: Panetta gets the coveted thumbs up from Kelly Ayotte, whose brand as a hawkish Republican woman senator will provide O with some political cover.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

Most women don’t want to be in combat units. A year from now – there will be very few … and Congress will be screaming at the services to get more women on the front lines. The services will do that by “slamming” women into those jobs involuntarily.

This could be ugly.

HondaV65 on January 23, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Panetta lifts Pentagon ban on women serving in direct combat

Does that include them serving in combat here in the United States of America against American Citizens?

SWalker on January 23, 2013 at 5:17 PM

#WarOnWomen

Resist We Much on January 23, 2013 at 5:17 PM

WOW !!! What timing!!! Seems to have knocked the Hilary story off as the top story on all the MSM sites. Incredible luck!

brewcrew67 on January 23, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Sorry ladies, I don’t like this one bit.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Next up…children.

Lily on January 23, 2013 at 5:21 PM

How many men will die trying to save/defend these women in a Jessica Lynch situation?

portlandon on January 23, 2013 at 5:21 PM

#WarOnWomen

Resist We Much on January 23, 2013 at 5:17 PM

.
I don’t believe anything else needs saying, after that.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Does that include Transgender troops?

portlandon on January 23, 2013 at 5:21 PM

In their minds they are cleaning the gene pool.

WryTrvllr on January 23, 2013 at 5:22 PM

The Obama Administration: Pathetic bunch of girly-men.

kingsjester on January 23, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Y’know, guys don’t normally rush into combat. Sometimes an NCO has got to grab him by the shirt and push him into the fight. That is going to go sooooo well when guys start doing that to girls…

apostic on January 23, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Men, just remember to weigh 20% less before getting hit.

Christien on January 23, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Sorry ladies, I don’t like this one bit.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Despite trying to be a US Marine(so I’m all for women serving…obviously) I’m VERY much against women serving in combat. Not just no but HELL NO!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2013 at 5:25 PM

QUICK – STOP LOOKING AT RAGING SHRILLARY…look over here: Women in Combat!!!!!!!

TeaPartyNation on January 23, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Good decision. If they can meet the same criteria there is nothing wrong with this.

lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

I’m sure there will be no unintended consequences with this decision…

/

Seven Percent Solution on January 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Decided on by a bunch of men no doubt.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:28 PM

lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Most of them CAN’T meet the same criteria, and what about a mans natural impulse to protect women. In combat…that could be deadly.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Decided on by a bunch of men 0′s guys no doubt.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Good decision. If they can meet the same criteria there is nothing wrong with this.

lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Given the physical differences between men and women, most won’t .

EnglishRogue on January 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Decided on by a bunch of men 0′s guys no doubt.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Never mind.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Sorry ladies, I don’t like this one bit.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:19 PM

No apology is needed. I don’t like it one bit either.

INC on January 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

The only young men who enlist now will be fools. I’ve been telling young men to stay away from the military since it was drubbed under slick Willie. Now the process is complete.

Quartermaster on January 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Panetta is in fantasy land. We all know what will happen to a woman with all that goes on. For one, getting captured by the enemy, wounded or not, the females do not fare well. It is the worst slasher movie come to life and in person. Does any woman want to experience that just for the thrill of being on the front line?

jake49 on January 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

The activist kept pushing so let them have it.I say it’s on their backs now,no pun intended.

docflash on January 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Just curious lester, have you ever served?

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

I do not have a problem with this. Or this!

antisense on January 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

No apology is needed. I don’t like it one bit either.

INC on January 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Nor do I.
Btw: Does that mean that 18-25 year old women will now be required to register w/ Selective Service?

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Decided on by a Secretary of Defense who’s such a frigging expert in infantry combat, he thinks M16′s come with “armor-piercing bullets”.

quikstrike98 on January 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Are 18 year old women going to now be required to sign up with the SS? After all, it’s only fair…

ladyingray on January 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM

I don’t know, if the standards aren’t reduced to a laughable state and a woman can pass the test then why not.

Bishop on January 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Btw: Does that mean that 18-25 year old women will now be required to register w/ Selective Service?

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Good question alt.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Good decision. If they can meet the same criteria there is nothing wrong with this.
lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Excellent point: If women were men and this were Opposite World, then nearly EVERY liberal idea would stop being totally screwed-in-the-head moronic.

logis on January 23, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Pictures of dead combat women sure do fit the anti-war narrative. It’s all about the messaging.

Cpoy2 on January 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Time for them to sign up for selective service too then.

xblade on January 23, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Will they change the code of conduct to state “Only give name, rank, serial number, and chastity when questioned?” We’re in a war against people who, among other things, are misogynists and sexually repressed, so we send women to the front lines.

Genius. Abso-effing-lutely genius.

Wino on January 23, 2013 at 5:36 PM

lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Just curious lester, have you ever served?
Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

In the first place, that’s pretty obvious. In the second place, I assumed this forum had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

At any rate, let’s try to steer this discussion back to military matters.

logis on January 23, 2013 at 5:36 PM

When I read the headline, a chill passed through my bones.

I work with a lot of injured vets, see a lot of PTSD. When these men see what happens to them happening to women, that is going to cause even additional damage. This world gets sicker every day.

JustTruth101 on January 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM

I don’t know, if the standards aren’t reduced to a laughable state and a woman can pass the test then why not.

Bishop on January 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Because in a jihad war to wipe out the Great Satan, they will be prime targets.

WryTrvllr on January 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM

AP,
I served with both her and her husband in AFG,(the second article) she’s a tough cookie, she was a Lt then, and both are crossfit finatics, but it doesn’t matter, they won’t listen to her, her and I had a long chat outside of Sangin one day, trust me she know what she’s talking about and can articulate, but again, they won’t listen.

MarshFox on January 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM

I don’t know, if the standards aren’t reduced to a laughable state and a woman can pass the test then why not.

Bishop on January 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM

The standards in just about everything are laughable. The gun is a great equalizer, so I see no problem with more warm bodies on the front lines. I just want the women to keep their weapons when they return from combat.

The guys I saw when I got 99% on my ASVAB test were about 6 foot and 98lbs soaking wet. Not too threatening to me. Have you ever had a wife/girlfriend give you “the look”? Yeah, they’ll be alright.

antisense on January 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM

‘Debunking the Israeli women in combat myth’

Israel – a nation of about 6.2 million people constantly at war with its neighbors – allowed women in combat, the idiots shriek. Why, then, must the American military, as regards ground combat roles, remain so androcentric, so “male-centered”?

It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission.

“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.

EnglishRogue on January 23, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Terry Moran: Curious. What is Leon Panetta’s military background? Did he ever in the military?

Very good questions, Terry.

Christien on January 23, 2013 at 5:38 PM

finatics=fanatics

MarshFox on January 23, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Good decision. If they can meet the same criteria there is nothing wrong with this.

lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

They rarely, if ever, can. When I was in, even the PT test was “adjusted” downwards for women.

ddrintn on January 23, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Good decision. If they can meet the same criteria there is nothing wrong with this.
lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Men don’t get a free ticket home from a combat zone because they’re pregnant. Nor can they get a federally funded abortion as soon as they get off plane when they come home.

Don’t like humping that SAW around and getting shot at? Start humping the rest of the company.

BobMbx on January 23, 2013 at 5:39 PM

logis on January 23, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Allow me to make this simple for you to get. Manage your own affairs stay the heII out of mine. Savy?

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Given the physical differences between men and women, most won’t .

EnglishRogue

Nothing a sexual discrimination lawsuit can’t take care of. Coming soon to a military near you…lowering the standards for women so they can prove they are just as qualified as men.

xblade on January 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Are 18 year old women going to now be required to sign up with the SS? After all, it’s only fair…

ladyingray on January 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM

I’ve always thought that they should have to if they are to be allowed in the military at all.

But, of course, the feminist movement, like the gay rights movement, has been a SELECTIVE quest for superior rights, not one for actual EQUAL rights.

Right now a woman can choose to enter the military or not, in times of war, or not, or in time of draft, or not. She can also choose whether to be sent into combat or not.

The same is not true for men.

If women are going to be allowed the benefits of military service they should face the same potential pitfalls that men do, including mandatory sign up at age 18 with selective service, and the same obligation for combat duty regardless of what they sign up for.

Or, end mandatory selective service sign up for 18 year old men and give them the same choice for combat or not.

It’s only fair.

wildcat72 on January 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM

We’re in a war against people who, among other things, are misogynists and sexually repressed, so we send women to the front lines. Genius. Abso-effing-lutely genius.
Wino on January 23, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Just like Vietnam, this war has officially stopped being about achieving about military objectives and has become entirely about propaganda.

This strategy serves that cause. To al Qaida, one female American soldier is worth a hundred male soldiers.

logis on January 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Did you make it?

MarshFox on January 23, 2013 at 5:42 PM

• Pushups for one minute. This event was nearly replaced with dead-hang pullups, which are a better measure of functional upper body strength. Pullups were included in more than 1,000 pilot tests conducted at Fort Bliss, Texas. The scoring discrepancy between men and women was so great that different events would have been required to keep it fair. For example, Marines test men with dead-hangs and women with a flex-arm hang.

Army officials are adamant that the new test remain gender-neutral. That means identical events with different scoring standards for men and women.

“If we did the pullups, it would disadvantage the female soldiers, and I’m just not comfortable with that,” Longo said.

Pullups weren’t part of the standard PT test when I was, only for Airborne school. But that gives you an idea of the “same criteria” b.s.

ddrintn on January 23, 2013 at 5:42 PM

* when I was in, that is

ddrintn on January 23, 2013 at 5:42 PM

They should be very popular with the Taliban.

Ward Cleaver on January 23, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Too bad, I guess lester left. Again.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Nothing a sexual discrimination lawsuit can’t take care of. Coming soon to a military near you…lowering the standards for women so they can prove they are just as qualified as men.

xblade on January 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM

It’s always the left who ignore and fight against human nature. Forcing female physical “equality” onto the military will end up resulting in lots of dead women (and dead men because of their failure, and because men will try to protect women) and lost battles.

Not to say there aren’t combat roles women could play without the differences becoming a problem, such as flying aircraft or operating drones. Putting them in the field as infantry or even in tank crews would be a disaster in an actual battle.

Women cease to be on the same level as men physically after puberty, when their bodies spend their energy developing the ability to have babies, while men continue to develop strength…

wildcat72 on January 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Just curious lester, have you ever served?

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Wouldn’t he have had to pass a medium-information voter aptitude test first?

Resist We Much on January 23, 2013 at 5:46 PM

First, women will need to meet higher criteria than women currently meet. If the physical standards are the EXACT same, then the attrition rate of women going through the training programs will be significantly higher than the attrition rate for me.

blink on January 23, 2013 at 5:44 PM

That won’t happen. They’ll just adjust the requirements downward to the extent that a 300-pound male couch potato can meet them.

ddrintn on January 23, 2013 at 5:47 PM

The first few cases of a man giving in to his ‘natural instincts’ to be overly protective of women- and getting blown to Hell for it, will quickly dissipate the reaction in the rest. And the feminists will have what they want- men no more sensitive to a wounded comrade with their guts hanging out whether the voice is screaming soprano or not.

michaelo on January 23, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Try an all-female special ops unit. G’head. Let’s see ‘em run with the biggest dogs first.

Christien on January 23, 2013 at 5:48 PM

blink on January 23, 2013 at 5:44 PM

I believe that has been described as a “level playing field”, a “fair shot”, and “equality”. I’ve that recently…..I can’t quite put my finger on who said it….I seem to remember he liked to look up when talks to other people….Ofailure, Obortion, Obama…something like that.

BobMbx on January 23, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Most women don’t want to be in combat units. A year from now – there will be very few … and Congress will be screaming at the services to get more women on the front lines. The services will do that by “slamming” women into those jobs involuntarily.

This could be ugly.

HondaV65 on January 23, 2013 at 5:16 PM

You, once again, don’t know what you are talking about. No one now gets “slammed” into 11b (Army) or 0300 (USMC). Guys in trouble with the law after signing the contract, but before basic, can sometimes lose their contract and be offered infantry by the military, with the judge’s approval, or they can take the jail sentence. That’s as close to slammed as anyone gets in our all-volunteer military. To fill the ranks, the military would offer incentives and lower standards. And females will get their butts kicked in combatives and their spines crushed under 100lb packs on 20 mile training marches.

Good times.

As for elite unit service, I spent 10 months co-located with SEAL team *. Ray Lewis wouldn’t mess with those fellows. And GI Jane is a movie that hasn’t a thing to do with reality.

M240H on January 23, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Anyone else see this on Drudge? (yes, it’s on topic)
.

JARRETT: ‘If There’s One Thing We Should All Agree On, It’s Protecting Women From Violence’…</a>

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 5:49 PM

One must assume that the President’s daughters will be volunteering for military service upon graduation of college. Presumably in a combat infantry role as butterbars in the US Army.

BKeyser on January 23, 2013 at 5:49 PM

The standards in just about everything are laughable. The gun is a great equalizer, so I see no problem with more warm bodies on the front lines.

Uh yeah. And when the male enemy is in your hole with you with murder in his eye and you’re choking each other, beating each other with your helmets, and ripping at each other with your teeth in a desperate, terror-soaked fight for your life, where’s your equalizer then?

quikstrike98 on January 23, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Resist We Much on January 23, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Good point! Lol1 Just thought I’d ask if he might have some insight into this from a professional standpoint. He indorses every move these clowns make after all.

P.S. I thought the lady on the right was prettier than the lady on the left in your poll. ; )

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM

oh no, women in combat! but women are so weak, they can’t handle it. /

i don’t see why people are against this. as long as they don’t lower physical strength requirements to accept women, or force women to be in those positions against their will, i don’t see the problem and i am happy about this.

Most of them CAN’T meet the same criteria, and what about a mans natural impulse to protect women. In combat…that could be deadly.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2013 at 5:28 PM

this is so silly. both men and women sodiers have a natural impulse to… protect all their fellow soldiers and protect their country. and that’s awesome. why should there be some kind of extra impulse on top of all that for a man to protect a woman? if a man is so foolish that he would do some kind of sudden, unwise thing in order to use the excuse of “i just have a natural impulse to protect women” then that’s his own fault. there’s no need to blame the woman because “a man has a natural impulse to…” that’s an excuse.

and what about women who CAN meet the criteria and do want to be in combat? we are supposed to shut them out because… why again? i don’t see a reason.

Sachiko on January 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Good decision. If they can meet the same criteria there is nothing wrong with this.

lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

They can’t. And they won’t be required to. Standards will be lowered for them…as they have been at all of the service academies; and in other regular units.

Solaratov on January 23, 2013 at 5:53 PM

As for elite unit service, I spent 10 months co-located with SEAL team *. Ray Lewis wouldn’t mess with those fellows. And GI Jane is a movie that hasn’t a thing to do with reality.

Politicians like Panetta will excoriate the military because women will be underrepresented, libtard Presidents like Obama will promote generals who are more politician than soldier, who will lower the standards and then go to Congress and give their “expert” opinion that everything is peachy-fine and the standards weren’t lowered, they were “re-defined” or some horsecrap. And Americans will die.

quikstrike98 on January 23, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Pull-ups is a HUGE issue.

blink on January 23, 2013 at 5:51 PM

When I was in basic (all-male training unit), there was a chinning bar right outside the mess hall. We had to do 10 before entering.

ddrintn on January 23, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Most women don’t want to be in combat units. A year from now – there will be very few … and Congress will be screaming at the services to get more women on the front lines. The services will do that by “slamming” women into those jobs involuntarily.

This could be ugly.

HondaV65 on January 23, 2013 at 5:16 PM

We’re gonna need a war somewhere so the wiminz can fight.

Some place with a temperate climate, not too humid, and with lots of after-foxhole places to relax.

I think we’re going to invade Tahiti.

BobMbx on January 23, 2013 at 5:55 PM

AP,
I served with both her and her husband in AFG,(the second article) she’s a tough cookie, she was a Lt then, and both are crossfit finatics, but it doesn’t matter, they won’t listen to her, her and I had a long chat outside of Sangin one day, trust me she know what she’s talking about and can articulate, but again, they won’t listen.

MarshFox on January 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Worth repeating.

INC on January 23, 2013 at 5:56 PM

The road to the destruction of our military is now complete. The introduction of just a single female into an infrantry platoon will completely change the social dynamic of that platoon.

Anyone who has belonged to single sex organizations e.g. boy scouts, scholastic sports, fraternities/sororities,etc. knows that mixed gender groups function very differently than single gender groups.

Men that were once comrades will now be competetors/protectors for their female counterparts.

It’s not just about whether Women can handle the rigors of combat. Certainly some can. The issue is that it will severely degrade the ability of the soldiers to bond with each other which is vital in a combat situation.

weathermen on January 23, 2013 at 5:56 PM

When I read the headline, a chill passed through my bones.

I work with a lot of injured vets, see a lot of PTSD. When these men see what happens to them happening to women, that is going to cause even additional damage. This world gets sicker every day.

JustTruth101 on January 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM

And what about the women returning home with PTSD – I’m sure that will be a Lot of Fun.

Of course now that women are allowed in combat roles, the concept of removing them from combat when PTSD becomes a problem will not be an option – we’ll just have to give up engaging in combat altogether.

jaydee_007 on January 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM

In the second place, I assumed this forum had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

At any rate, let’s try to steer this discussion back to military matters.

logis on January 23, 2013 at 5:36 PM

As far as serving in the military goes…you assume too much; and your assumption is wrong.

Solaratov on January 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Do you see women playing Major League Baseball? On the PGA Tour? In the NFL? On Men’s college football or basketball teams? In the NBA?

Even one? Not even ONE when they make up half the population?

Then there is no way there exists even one woman who can meet the same criteria as a man for combat duty.

wildcat72 on January 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Good decision. If they can meet the same criteria there is nothing wrong with this.
lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Given the physical differences between men and women, most won’t.
EnglishRogue on January 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

That’s actually a popular misconception. It doesn’t really work that way.

Of course SOME women will meet the MINIMUM requirements for front-line combat — but only by training themselves to their absolute limits. Unfortunately, MINIMALLY capable soldiers don’t tend to fare very well on any battlefield that actually exists in the real world.

Even in the very unlikely event that standards are not adjusted to meet Political Correction statistical requirements, many of the women soldiers this “brilliant plan” puts on the battlefield will be slaughtered – along with a much larger number of the male soldiers they’re fighting beside.

Most of the radical liberal morons who support this “brilliant plan” have the best intentions in the world. A few of them know precisely what they’re doing and are intentionally trying to murder American soldiers. Personally, I make no distinction between those two groups.

logis on January 23, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Do I have this right…women can choose if they want to be in combat but men can be forced?

CW on January 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Meh. If women get to pick and choose whether they can be on the front lines, it’s only fair the men can do the same.

ButterflyDragon on January 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Another stupid decision by a stupid administration. This should be fun to watch.

rplat on January 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Heard the horror stories of the Russian army raping German women after WWII? Jihadists would tear these women apart, but the Left won’t care.

INC on January 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Time to bring back the draft…

… then let’s see how well this blows over.

Seven Percent Solution on January 23, 2013 at 6:02 PM

INC on January 23, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Maybe, but honestly I doubt it will make a difference, next year women will be required to do pull-ups, no more flexed arm hang, however the scoring will be different, men vs women, so standards won’t be the same, and that in itself has nothing to do with the combat unit part, so we will have to see where that goes with standards as well.

MarshFox on January 23, 2013 at 6:03 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Did you make it?

MarshFox on January 23, 2013 at 5:42 PM

I did not, alas. I’m too uncoordinated. I couldn’t drill to save my life. I am, however married to a former US Marine(1982-86), and he doesn’t think that women should be allowed in the military in ANY capacity. He’s wrong about that.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Good on Panetta. It’s the opportunity for woman to finally prove their worth to those at HotAir who believe women to be less capable than men.

ZachV on January 23, 2013 at 6:03 PM

this is so silly. both men and women sodiers have a natural impulse to… protect all their fellow soldiers and protect their country. and that’s awesome. why should there be some kind of extra impulse on top of all that for a man to protect a woman?

You’re a bloody idiot. The Israelis already saw that men take extra casualties when women are in their units. Did you pay attention to what happened in that theater in Aurora? How many boyfrieds died shielding their girls from the bullets? How many women did the same for their boyfriends? There is hardwired evolutionary behavior that has served us well as a species for millions of years–and you tards want to rewire us in a year so that men no longer are concerned for the survival of women. Frankly, I don’t even want to live in a world like that–but it’s impossible to achieve anyway.

quikstrike98 on January 23, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Heard the horror stories of the Russian army raping German women after WWII? Jihadists would tear these women apart, but the Left won’t care.

INC on January 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Which is exactly why Israeli women aren’t combat troops.

ddrintn on January 23, 2013 at 6:03 PM

The horror that a possible female pow faces is something a civilized society would protect them from. But whatever. Brave New World!

tom daschle concerned on January 23, 2013 at 6:03 PM

BobMbx on January 23, 2013 at 5:39 PM

I remember being in Security Forces training in the Air Force and one of the female enlistees wanted to show her equality by carrying the M60 around all day. That lasted all of about 2 hours before she was asking for assistance. Not to say women can’t perform but sometimes their stature and physical prowess don’t lend itself to carrying the necessary weapons and protection for combat.

In another scenario I had a vertically challenged female Lt. Col ask me when I was instructing a 9mm class if they made a smaller hand gun for women. This was Baretta 9mm and she couldn’t get her hand around the pistol grip. I wondered how she qualified before. I had to show her a two hand grip just to get her to qualify. Again, not saying women can’t perform in combat, sometimes the laws of nature are at play.

rsherwd65 on January 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Does that include Transgender troops?

It will eventually, if the Left gets its way.

hawkeye54 on January 23, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Good decision. If they can meet the same criteria there is nothing wrong with this.

lester on January 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

YEP!…you are dumber than dirt!…can tell you’ve been around lobotomylester !

KOOLAID2 on January 23, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Time to bring back the draft…

… then let’s see how well this blows over.

Seven Percent Solution on January 23, 2013 at 6:02 PM

If they brought back the draft, the American People would march on Washington with rifles if they tried to keep us at war for more than a decade like they’ve done in Afghanistan…

If our government knew that any war it got into would HAVE to be short as possible and have a CLEAR purpose, AND clearly be in our national interest, it would get into less of them. And it would prosecute them in a much less politically correct way.

We destroyed Nazi Germany and Tojo’s Japan in less than 5 years because we didn’t mind killing civilians who got in the way.

Had we fought World War II like we fought Iraq and Afghanistan it would have taken 20 years and we’d have lost.

wildcat72 on January 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Another stupid decision by a stupid administration. This should be fun to watch.

Just another means of the Left downgrading our armed forces as perfect laboratory for their social experiments.

hawkeye54 on January 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Try an all-female special ops unit. G’head. Let’s see ‘em run with the biggest dogs first.

Christien on January 23, 2013 at 5:48 PM

This spring, the Army is going to allow a “test” group of women to go to Ranger School.

And the “word” has already come down from ‘somewhere up above’ that THEY WILL FINISH THE SCHOOL.Whatever it takes.

[On the other hand, Delta has had women in their ranks for some time now - but they are the exception, NOT the rule. And, they met every test to the same standards as the men.]

Solaratov on January 23, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Because in a jihad war to wipe out the Great Satan, they will be prime targets.

WryTrvllr on January 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM

If the women understand that and are still willing to fight, then let them.

Bishop on January 23, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7