How Leon Panetta started the march toward putting women in combat roles

posted at 9:21 am on January 6, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

We’ve had more than a few discussions here about recent decisions by the Obama administration to open more combat roles to women in the United States military. Looking over the headlines one could get the impression that this is largely a product of the current leadership and the approval process is something which came about rather quickly. But Time Magazine has an excerpt from Jay Newton-Small’s new book “Broad Influence: How Women Are Changing the Way America Works” this week which shows that the real driving force behind this movement was actually Leon Panetta during his tenure at Defense.

This background analysis starts with descriptions of how Panetta saw the sacrifices of women in the CIA in Afghanistan and other places while he was the director there. Then, as Defense Secretary, he again observed many women serving valiantly as pilots and military police escorts. This apparently got him thinking. (Time)

Upon his return to the Pentagon, Panetta started asking his generals why women were barred from forward deployments and combat missions. At first the answer seemed that it was because they couldn’t meet the physical standards: for example, the number of pull-ups required.

But when he asked about the women who could meet those standards, the generals ran out of answers. “He found it was a gender-based prohibition, not merit- or physical-based prohibition,” said Jeremy Bash, who served as Panetta’s chief of staff at both the CIA and the Pentagon. “Just: men can and women can’t. He thought that was wrong and worked very closely with [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General [Martin] Dempsey to make a change.”

While this looks like something of a puff piece for Panetta, it does uncover some of the flaws underlying these “reforms” which come pretty much straight out of the Social Justice Warrior playbook. There’s nothing wrong with examining the requirements for combat duty and asking how many (if any) women can actually meet them at the same level as the men. These are valid questions and tie directly into the challenges of fighting on the front lines, as well as identifying possible weak links in the chain when it comes time to do the dirty business of war. But that’s really not the entire story here.

There are a lot more questions to answer beyond simply finding some women who are capable of doing the required number of pull-ups that the Drill Sergeant demands in boot camp. And I’m not even talking about separate bathroom facilities at the forward operating post (though that does become a bigger issue in the Navy for ships at sea) or how many sleeping bags to issue. We tend to be hard wired for a few things as a species and the differences between humans along gender lines go back a long ways, embedded deep in our biological code. Men – particularly the ones with the personality traits that lead them to volunteer for combat duty – have a reflexive impulse to protect women. It’s just built into us, and I remain fully convinced that this is not a bad thing. I understand that drives the SJW insane to hear, but it’s difficult to deny abject reality. And as I’ve discussed here before, I’m hardly the first person to point out that such a reflexive action can compromise a unit’s effectiveness in the heat of battle.

Also, it should go without saying that the treatment female soldiers can expect to receive from from their (probably Islamic) captors on the battlefield these days is, if anything, significantly more horrific than even that which the men will encounter. There are serious flaws with this idea and Panetta failed to take any of them into account. But we’re in the brave new world now for better or worse. I just hope I don’t get proven right in some future encounter in foreign lands.

Panetta DoD Cyber Security


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Women in combat is wrong on every level.

Younggod on January 6, 2016 at 9:23 AM

Everything they do is designed to hamstring the military.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:24 AM

Also, it should go without saying that the treatment female soldiers can expect to receive from from their (probably Islamic) captors on the battlefield these days is, if anything, significantly more horrific than even that which the men will encounter. There are serious flaws with this idea and Panetta failed to take any of them into account. But we’re in the brave new world now for better or worse. I just hope I don’t get proven right in some future encounter in foreign lands.

Brave New World? Israel has had women in the IDF for years. Woman fought from the Kibbutzes as far back as 1948. My step daughter spend three weeks in October as a volunteer on a IDF base.

There is no serious flaws.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:25 AM

WHY does Leon Panetta hate women????

oscarwilde on January 6, 2016 at 9:26 AM

Make me a samich. And bring more ammo!

Magicjava on January 6, 2016 at 9:27 AM

Brave New World? Israel has had women in the IDF for years. Woman fought from the Kibbutzes as far back as 1948. My step daughter spend three weeks in October as a volunteer on a IDF base.

There is no serious flaws.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:25 AM

Did the IDF lower standards to allow women to take any combat roles?

gwelf on January 6, 2016 at 9:29 AM

Did the IDF lower standards to allow women to take any combat roles?

gwelf on January 6, 2016 at 9:29 AM

Good question.

Clause 16A of the military service law requires that female combat soldiers serve 3 years of mandatory service, and continue in reserves service up to age 38, even if they become mothers. These are essentially identical to the terms of service for male combat soldiers.[3] Each year, 1,500 female combat soldiers are drafted into the IDF.[6] Women currently make up 3% of the IDF’s combat soldiers.[8] Women were not employed in combat roles until 2000, when the Caracal Battalion was raised.
In 2014, the IDF appointed Major Oshrat Bacher as Israel’s first female combat battalion commander.[21]
A combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[5] The unit undergoes training like any combat infantry.[6] The IDF commando K9 unit, Oketz, also drafts females as combat soldiers.[8]

Answer.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:32 AM

Full subject on women in the IDF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:33 AM

This is what you get with liberal draft dodgers making decisions for the military! These guys never thought about who had to take their place while dodging the draft and Vietnam!

hardrock230 on January 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM

Israel’s fertility rate of three children per Jewish woman is higher than that of any other country in the developed world, and the only fertility rate substantially above replacement. Only the United States among the world’s industrial nations has a fertility rate around the replacement level of 2.1; Europe and East Asia are headed for eventual population decline with fertility of just 1.5 children per woman. Israeli women, by contrast, have three children on average; non-Haredi Jewish women have an average of 2.6.

from:

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4058/israel-demographic-miracle

Well Walter, certainly seems like they can afford the “luxury”

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:35 AM

Why should a High School have a girls basketball team separate from a boys basketball team?

Deafdog on January 6, 2016 at 9:35 AM

How Leon Panetta started the march toward putting women in combat roles

I saw that.

IDontCair on January 6, 2016 at 9:35 AM

This is what you get with liberal draft dodgers making decisions for the military! These guys never thought about who had to take their place while dodging the draft and Vietnam!

hardrock230 on January 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM

Then how come the IDF has managed to integrate women into its force so nicely?

Women have taken part in Israel’s military before and since the founding of the state in 1948,[6][7] with women comprising 33% of all IDF soldiers and 51% of its officers, in 2011,[8] fulfilling various roles within the Ground, Navy and Air Forces. The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that “The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.”[5] As of now, 88% to 92%[9] of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.[3]

I guess American women are wusses or something.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:37 AM

Jazz said,

Men – particularly the ones with the personality traits that lead them to volunteer for combat duty – have a reflexive impulse to protect women. It’s just built into us,

I think that may be due to upbringing and social conditioning.

Women are also protective of people they love and care about.

Human brains aren’t distinctly male or female – study

TigerPaw on January 6, 2016 at 9:38 AM

Gee, what happened to that lawsuit to end discrimination by Selective Service in favor of men? Oh, there is no such suit?

Something tells me the SJWs are going to wait a LOOOONG time before filing that suit. Registering all 18 y/o women =War on Wymynz?

james23 on January 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Make me a samich. And bring more ammo!

Magicjava on January 6, 2016 at 9:27 AM

Women can already serve in those MOSs.

If we’re going to emulate the IDF, does that mean separate battalions, or even regiments?

I think it should go without saying that the Selective Service act must be amended to include women, if we’re going to do this.

malclave on January 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM

from:

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4058/israel-demographic-miracle

Well Walter, certainly seems like they can afford the “luxury”

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:35 AM

That’s not the point at all.

How many women they have has nothing to do with the women’s ability to serve.

That’s comparing apples to knishes.

Read the Wiki entry on women in the IDF.

They are not given any breaks.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Did the IDF lower standards to allow women to take any combat roles?

gwelf on January 6, 2016 at 9:29 AM

I think women can kill men just as good as a man.

How often in combat do men get killed by push-ups…. vs. fire arms or bombs being dropped by planes?

TigerPaw on January 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Walter, using Israel – a very tiny and continually threatened nation with (necessary) mandatory service for men and women – is a poor example.

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on January 6, 2016 at 9:40 AM

Jazz.

The IDF proves you wrong in almost every point you tried to make above.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM

Walter, using Israel – a very tiny and continually threatened nation with (necessary) mandatory service for men and women – is a poor example.

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on January 6, 2016 at 9:40 AM

Once again, comparing apples to lamb meat balls.

The bottom line is they join and they can do the job.

Are you saying our women are wusses?

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:42 AM

If they don’t require women to register for Selective Service, there should be a law suit.

rickyricardo on January 6, 2016 at 9:42 AM

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Don’t really care how they perform Walter. In the final analysis, killing off your women kills off your society. Unless the remaining women can pick up the “slack.”

This should be common sense.

The US fertility rate was 1.9 in 2013. We cannot afford this.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:43 AM

Tigerpaw, it appears you’ve never heard of sexual dimorphism. Look it up.

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on January 6, 2016 at 9:44 AM

Don’t really care how they perform Walter. In the final analysis, killing off your women kills off your society. Unless the remaining women can pick up the “slack.”

This should be common sense.

The US fertility rate was 1.9 in 2013. We cannot afford this.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:43 AM

The world is full of women, men will always find someone to have sex with. You have too narrow of a focus.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:48 AM

I’m still waiting for the requirement that women be required to sign up for selective service. Given the new parameters, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be eligible to be drafted into the military. No reason why they shouldn’t have to prove they have registered to be eligible for college loans, federal employment, etc.

Happy Nomad on January 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM

Don’t really care how they perform Walter. In the final analysis, killing off your women kills off your society. Unless the remaining women can pick up the “slack.”

This should be common sense.

The US fertility rate was 1.9 in 2013. We cannot afford this.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:43 AM

There were 143+ million women in the US at the 2010 census.

Twenty-seven million were between the ages of 18-24.

Gonna take a really big war to kill off even 1/4 of them half of them were in the military.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM

The world is full of women, men will always find someone to have sex with. You have too narrow of a focus.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:48 AM

Heh. OK. So did the native Germans. Especially the ones criticizing that native German mother o 6 (?). Mercilessly.

The big picture is the best picture.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM

I’m still waiting for the requirement that women be required to sign up for selective service. Given the new parameters, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be eligible to be drafted into the military. No reason why they shouldn’t have to prove they have registered to be eligible for college loans, federal employment, etc.

Happy Nomad on January 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM

And I agree. I think we could get President Trump to consider that if we get it on his radar.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:52 AM

Walter, do you even read your own “evidence”?

“Each year, 1,500 female combat soldiers are drafted into the IDF”

“The bottom line is they join and they can do the job.”

Also…

As of now, 88% to 92%[9] of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.[3]

You do realize that the US military was higher than this even before this admin just went to 100% for women?

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on January 6, 2016 at 9:52 AM

Heh. OK. So did the native Germans. Especially the ones criticizing that native German mother o 6 (?). Mercilessly.

The big picture is the best picture.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM

??

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:53 AM

Then how come the IDF has managed to integrate women into its force so nicely?

[8] Women were not employed in combat roles until 2000, when the Caracal Battalion was raised.
In 2014, the IDF appointed Major Oshrat Bacher as Israel’s first female combat battalion commander.[21]
A combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[5] The unit undergoes training like any combat infantry.[6] The IDF commando K9 unit, Oketz, also drafts females as combat soldiers.[8]

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:37 AM

Perhaps you should read what you quoted. Most of the women serve separately in a light infantry force battalion specially for women.

They are segregated into a unit where they will not adversely affect the performance of other predominantly male units. This is not an example of “integration”.

dominigan on January 6, 2016 at 9:53 AM

There were 143+ million women in the US at the 2010 census.

Twenty-seven million were between the ages of 18-24.

Yeah, I know. Way too many. Nothing abortion, libtard indoctrination, and now combat duty won’t solve.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:53 AM

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on January 6, 2016 at 9:52 AM

Then everything is working out fine.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:53 AM

Perhaps you should read what you quoted. Most of the women serve separately in a light infantry force battalion specially for women.

They are segregated into a unit where they will not adversely affect the performance of other predominantly male units. This is not an example of “integration”.

dominigan on January 6, 2016 at 9:53 AM

Maybe you should read the bottom line.

As of now, 88% to 92%[9] of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:55 AM

How often in combat do men get killed by push-ups…. vs. fire arms or bombs being dropped by planes?

TigerPaw on January 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Oh for cryin’ out loud! Endurance on long marches carrying heavy back packs and the ability/strength to carry a wounded comrade out of harms way during a firefight are just a couple of the reasons I have seen mentioned by our troops.

butch on January 6, 2016 at 9:56 AM

Yeah, I know. Way too many. Nothing abortion, libtard indoctrination, and now combat duty won’t solve.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:53 AM

I’m surprised that you think these are too many and you are applauding numerous ways to get rid of them?

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:56 AM

I’m surprised that you think these are too many and you are applauding numerous ways to get rid of them?

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:56 AM

Again, big pictures seem to elude you.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2016 at 9:56 AM


Uniformed Israeli women patrol the borders or help to train men for combat positions, but these important missions do not involve direct ground combat, meaning deliberate offensive action against the enemy,” said Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness. “None of America’s allies, much less potential adversaries, are treating women like men in the combat arms.”

The Times of Israel said the IDF provided a statement that read, in part, that the “possibility of opening additional combat positions to girls is being tested all the time.” As of today, “infantry and the armored corps were ruled out for women.”

Our commanders are expecting to put women into main battle tanks and in front-line combat brigades mobilized to engage in direct heavy combat for hour or even days. This is something the Israeli women’s unit is NOT there to do.

flahockey on January 6, 2016 at 9:56 AM

Walter, using Israel – a very tiny and continually threatened nation with (necessary) mandatory service for men and women – is a poor example.

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on January 6, 2016 at 9:40 AM

I agree.

Fighting on your own soil for the safety of your country and literally for your family is enormously different than being a professional soldier fighting in an entirely oversea capacity.

Were the enemies at the gates, my daughters and I would be firing right along side the old men, boys and professional soldiers- but sending my girls into infantry combat in some foreign misadventure by a feckless President? Unnecessarily endangering my boys, who would do some pretty foolish things to keep their sisters or your sisters from harm?

No. Your premise is invalid and your example isn’t a good one. Some few women can physically perform all the tasks required of an American infantryman, but so what? Most cannot. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

To say women cannot or would not fight when circumstances call for it, as they do in Israel, is equally ridiculous, but the circumstances in American military service are significantly different.

Dolce Far Niente on January 6, 2016 at 9:56 AM

Did the IDF lower standards to allow women to take any combat roles?

gwelf on January 6, 2016 at 9:29 AM

Good question.

Clause 16A of the military service law requires that female combat soldiers serve 3 years of mandatory service, and continue in reserves service up to age 38, even if they become mothers. These are essentially identical to the terms of service for male combat soldiers.[3] Each year, 1,500 female combat soldiers are drafted into the IDF.[6] Women currently make up 3% of the IDF’s combat soldiers.[8] Women were not employed in combat roles until 2000, when the Caracal Battalion was raised.
In 2014, the IDF appointed Major Oshrat Bacher as Israel’s first female combat battalion commander.[21]
A combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[5] The unit undergoes training like any combat infantry.[6] The IDF commando K9 unit, Oketz, also drafts females as combat soldiers.[8]

Answer.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:32 AM

I appreciate the effort to respond but that didn’t answer my question.

But it is interesting that women didn’t serve in combat roles until 2000. Usually when it’s mentioned – not saying you did this – that the IDF deploys women to combat that this includes Israels most vicious battles and their long history of survival.

gwelf on January 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM

The big issue for me is that we all know that this whole Womynses Equality push is going to lower the military’s standards for admittance to elite units and institutions. We all know that combat readiness and using the absolute best is going to take a back seat to “equality” and “diversity”.

gwelf on January 6, 2016 at 10:00 AM

I appreciate the effort to respond but that didn’t answer my question.

But it is interesting that women didn’t serve in combat roles until 2000. Usually when it’s mentioned – not saying you did this – that the IDF deploys women to combat that this includes Israels most vicious battles and their long history of survival.

gwelf on January 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM

Here’s the breakdown.

1948: Women on full combat status during the War of Independence
1948-Late 1990’s: No women allowed in combat roles
Late 1990’s-Present: Majority of combat positions – including pilots and special forces – open to women

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/femcom.html

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 10:01 AM

Rather O/T,

but how Panetta escaped all questions regarding Benghazi still sticks in my craw.

leftamark on January 6, 2016 at 10:02 AM

I agree.

Fighting on your own soil for the safety of your country and literally for your family is enormously different than being a professional soldier fighting in an entirely oversea capacity.

What?

You learn to be a soldier. You learn to fight on this patch of sand or another patch of sand and you’re doing it to keep the enemy out of your country. Period.

Unless you just like to kill people.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 10:02 AM

I think that may be due to upbringing and social conditioning…

TigerPaw on January 6, 2016 at 9:38 AM

Nope. It’s biological. Never had a son, eh?

Fallon on January 6, 2016 at 10:02 AM

Walter, using Israel – a very tiny and continually threatened nation with (necessary) mandatory service for men and women – is a poor example.

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on January 6, 2016 at 9:40 AM

I believe this to be a legitimate point. Israel’s military’s prime role is to protect Israel, proper, from invasion by its Muslim neighbors. It is not a worldwide force projecting US military power, worldwide. Being a small country surrounded by millions of enemies, it makes some sense to have women in some combat roles. It makes little to no sense for us. There are very many roles within the military suitable for the talents of women. Mainforce combat in every corner of the world is not one of them imho.

vnvet on January 6, 2016 at 10:03 AM

gwelf on January 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM

I tell you what. Not a promise, only a maybe, I’ll be in Israel in a week and a half, but if I can get a talking female IDF soldier to talk to me, I’ll inquire about some of these issues, how hard they train, is training any different etc.

I’m also meeting with the editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post. Maybe I can query him and/or get access, through him, to an female soldier.

Only maybe,

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 10:05 AM

I believe this to be a legitimate point. Israel’s military’s prime role is to protect Israel, proper, from invasion by its Muslim neighbors. It is not a worldwide force projecting US military power, worldwide. Being a small country surrounded by millions of enemies, it makes some sense to have women in some combat roles. It makes little to no sense for us. There are very many roles within the military suitable for the talents of women. Mainforce combat in every corner of the world is not one of them imho.

vnvet on January 6, 2016 at 10:03 AM

I’ll concede with you on the protection of Israeli proper, but why do you think they wouldn’t be just as effective and useful if they were on the soil of another country?

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 10:07 AM

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 10:07 AM

Or, just as ineffective. Israel has been tweaking their defined role for women (in combat) for sometime. I do believe that the jury is still out on that. They have the luxury of playing this out on a very small scale; we don’t, in the long run. Testosterone filled warriors will always look to protect the weakest link of the opposite sex in a frontline combat unit and for many reasons that go back to the biological roles of men and women (unless you’re, well, never mind) that can’t be redefined just for ‘social justice’. Bad idea. That’s my story an’ I’m stickin’ to it.

vnvet on January 6, 2016 at 10:25 AM

Men … have a reflexive impulse to protect women. It’s just built into us, and I remain fully convinced that this is not a bad thing. I understand that drives the SJW insane to hear, but it’s difficult to deny abject reality.

.
Abject?
.

ab·ject
ˈabˌjekt,abˈjekt/
adjective
adjective: abject

1.
(of a situation or condition) extremely bad, unpleasant, and degrading.
“abject poverty”
synonyms: wretched, miserable, hopeless, pathetic, pitiful, pitiable, piteous, sorry, woeful, lamentable, degrading, appalling, atrocious, awful
“abject poverty”
(of an unhappy state of mind) experienced to the maximum degree.
“his letter plunged her into abject misery”
2.
(of a person or their behavior) completely without pride or dignity; self-abasing.
“an abject apology”
synonyms: contemptible, base, low, vile, worthless, debased, degraded, despicable, ignominious, mean, unworthy, ignoble

Really? Is this the way you feel or did you choose the wrong adjective? Maybe you meant “Birkenstocks reality.”

ExpressoBold on January 6, 2016 at 10:25 AM

I’ll concede with you on the protection of Israeli proper, but why do you think they wouldn’t be just as effective and useful if they were on the soil of another country?

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 10:07 AM

because ROE changes according to SOFA depending on the country.
this puts women at an inherent disadvantage.
add in our countries policy to let women use different qualification scores and its a mess.
also, and I may be wrong here, doesn’t IDF req women to use drugs to pretty much interrupt their periods to prevent the physical changes during that time?
IDF treats men/women pretty much the same, an asset not bound by gender.
we don’t.
we allow them to use lower scores to qualify and don’t chemically interrupt their cycles.

dmacleo on January 6, 2016 at 10:28 AM

The “women in combat” initiative was just a leftist excuse to cover Panetta’s REAL agenda, which is the degradation of the US military.

landlines on January 6, 2016 at 10:28 AM

Brave New World? Israel has had women in the IDF for years. Woman fought from the Kibbutzes as far back as 1948. My step daughter spend three weeks in October as a volunteer on a IDF base.

There is no serious flaws.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:25 AM

In the IDF? Yes. In combat? Mostly no. They tried it for a while and then came to their senses and barred females from most combat positions.

soghornetgunner on January 6, 2016 at 10:35 AM

landlines on January 6, 2016 at 10:28 AM

Amen.

Herb on January 6, 2016 at 10:36 AM

Human brains aren’t distinctly male or female – study

TigerPaw on January 6, 2016 at 9:38 AM

.
First comment debunks the article – “junk science.” Really” AAAS? Their position on CAGW:

In December 2006, the AAAS adopted an official statement on climate change, in which they stated, “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society….The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.”[9]

At least have the decency to issue a trigger warning and indicate that the source of your non-information is merely a cow plop poop dropping.
.
AAAS. Get real.

ExpressoBold on January 6, 2016 at 10:37 AM

Walter L. Newton Just one question: Have you served in combat?

soghornetgunner on January 6, 2016 at 10:37 AM

Walter L. Newton says:

Then how come the IDF has managed to integrate women into its force so nicely?

How does having females in their military services make them better fighting force?

soghornetgunner on January 6, 2016 at 10:41 AM

I think that may be due to upbringing and social conditioning.

Women are also protective of people they love and care about.

Human brains aren’t distinctly male or female – study

TigerPaw on January 6, 2016 at 9:38 AM

Not that different but none the less, DIFFERENT.

soghornetgunner on January 6, 2016 at 10:44 AM

I have zero issues with women serving front-line combat service. As long as those women qualify for those roles. Where I have issues is when you have any service man or service woman fast-tracked in the name of political expediency. Case in point, during the Clinton Administration, women were allowed to serve as Combat Navy Aviators, with an emphasis placed on qualifying female aviators regardless of whether or not they passed the requirements as their mail counterparts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen

Turtle317 on January 6, 2016 at 10:45 AM

Should read male counterparts:

above.

Turtle317 on January 6, 2016 at 10:46 AM

I think women can kill men just as good as a man.

How often in combat do men get killed by push-ups…. vs. fire arms or bombs being dropped by planes?

TigerPaw on January 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Your statement indicates that you have never served in uniform much less in combat.

soghornetgunner on January 6, 2016 at 10:47 AM

Walter, using Israel … is a poor example.

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on January 6, 2016 at 9:40 AM

.
Why is it a poor example? As long as women and old men aren’t in hand-to-hand combat with invaders, why is there a problem with combat service for women who feel compelled to serve in that capacity and are qualified?
.
Didn’t Walter’s reference indicate that the combat units women swerved in were primarily women only?

ExpressoBold on January 6, 2016 at 10:47 AM

The whole discussion here is sloppy. There have been women in US “combat roles” for 20 years, flying planes, helo’s and serving as MPs.

The debate is about allowing women into some very demanding positions in SOF, Infantry, Armor, and Artillery.

It boils down to Civil Rights versus Force Effectiveness.

The purpose of the Army and Marines is to break things, kill people and occupy enemy terrain.

It is apparent to most everybody that has ever come into contact with those functions, be they male or female, that the answer to the force effectiveness question is:

No, the force is less effective with female grunts (which is different that having a few females attached to a grunt unit for some specific civic action mission)

so unless it is a civil rights decision, No on the basic question.

PS: I’m married to a retired female Army Colonel, so I have no absolute bias against women in the Army generally.

PPS: You can google an Army study from 2004 that focused on combat loads for light infantry troops. There were 3 general classes studied.

65lb
110lb
140lb

the drill sgt on January 6, 2016 at 10:50 AM

There is exactly 0 evidence that shows male/female integrated ground combat units perform as well as all-male ground combat units.

Using Israel’s segregated all female light infantry units as proff grrrl power won’t ruin unit cohesion is absurd. I can tell you from first hand experience running convoys in Kabul back in ’09 that women don’t belong anywhere near combat units. They suffer physical injury at much higher rates and get pregnant at alarming rates.

spec_ops_mateo on January 6, 2016 at 11:07 AM

So this means that the infantry will see the same rates of pre-deployment pregnancies that the Navy sees?

Just a dumb idea.

Maybe there are a few women out there who could have been my AG and humped the ammo and the spare barrel and tripod/pintle, etc… along with her own ruck and carried her weapon – and kept up.

But there are a far greater number of men who could do the same, so what is the point?

The first time a woman complains about sexist remarks or runs to IG because she didn’t get a promotion and claims it’s because she is a woman – or the first time one gets special treatment or gets pregnant ahead of a deployment then it will be an instant morale killer with the platoon.

It’s just not needed and completely full of downside.

reaganaut on January 6, 2016 at 11:19 AM

It’s just not needed and completely full of downside.

I was up north talking to a bunch of folks from the American Legion who came to my mom’s funeral last week and this topic came up while we were having a get together at a local pub after the viewing. I heard a lot of what you just said there, pretty much word for word. There are still some old timers from my Dad’s generation around, but the majority of them are younger guys from Desert Storm and Iraq/Afghanistan. Didn’t hear any of them arguing in favor of women in combat. Anecdotal, I know, but it seems a common sentiment.

Jazz Shaw on January 6, 2016 at 11:27 AM

Women in combat is wrong on every level.

Younggod on January 6, 2016 at 9:23 AM

I agree.

Fundamental differences between men and women are discarded too quickly in the name of “Social Justice” progress.

As if it really is “progress” to deny these innate differences?

How is that “progress”? How is that “progress” to sidestep these issues all in the name of “helping” women?

Men are different from Women. Women are different from Men.

And this is very relevant for today’s topic.

There is exactly 0 evidence that shows male/female integrated ground combat units perform as well as all-male ground combat units.

Using Israel’s segregated all female light infantry units as proof girl power won’t ruin unit cohesion is absurd. I can tell you from first hand experience running convoys in Kabul back in ’09 that women don’t belong anywhere near combat units. They suffer physical injury at much higher rates and get pregnant at alarming rates.

spec_ops_mateo on January 6, 2016 at 11:07 AM

I agree.

Men are different from women. Women are different from men.

Whether those “differences” are rooted in brain physiology or environment or something deeper ( like say “created differently” )……I leave up for the audience to decide……but the point is “We are different”. And to sidestep thousands of years of tradition to appease a powerful social justice lobby is sheer ignorance.

56andwarmweather on January 6, 2016 at 11:33 AM

Why is it a poor example? As long as women and old men aren’t in hand-to-hand combat with invaders, why is there a problem with combat service for women who feel compelled to serve in that capacity and are qualified?
.
Didn’t Walter’s reference indicate that the combat units women swerved in were primarily women only?

ExpressoBold on January 6, 2016 at 10:47 AM

Because a man will neglect his primary task in order to help a fallen woman in combat.

Men are different from women. Women are different from men.

56andwarmweather on January 6, 2016 at 11:37 AM

I think that may be due to upbringing and social conditioning.

Women are also protective of people they love and care about.

Human brains aren’t distinctly male or female – study

TigerPaw on January 6, 2016 at 9:38 AM

We have had 60 years of social and cultural re-programming in our country since the 1960s. And yet none of the “societal re-drawing of the cultural landscape” will change the fact that men and women are fundamentally different. And this difference has indeed been relevant to the current topic for millenia of time.

Human brains aren’t distinctly male or female – study

TigerPaw on January 6, 2016 at 9:38 AM

In fairness, human brains are NOT a lot of other things either.

Human brains are Not distinctly “non-male”…..nor are human brains “non-female”.

For you to appeal to physical attributes ( brain size, brain chemistry, etc..etc ) does not support your position because physical attributes change and do change and may change over time and due to sample selection.

56andwarmweather on January 6, 2016 at 11:47 AM

the drill sgt on January 6, 2016 at 10:50 AM

I agree 100%. If a woman desires to serve in the specialties you highlighted — Combat Arms — and IF she can meet and pass the same stringent physical requirements as men, then by all means welcome her into the fold. However, any lowering of the current physical requirements/standards required of men so that women can become ‘qualified’ in any of those disciplines to serve alongside those same men is a farce and slap in the face to those men.

…and to cut off any of the “have you ever served’ questions, the answer is yes:

Just short of 12 years Active Army, having served under Carter, Reagan, GHW bush, and a bit of Clinton thrown in.

19E – 19K
26E – 33V

tanked59 on January 6, 2016 at 11:47 AM

Also, it should go without saying that the treatment female soldiers can expect to receive from from their (probably Islamic) captors on the battlefield these days is, if anything, significantly more horrific than even that which the men will encounter.

Definitely a downside that does merit consideration.

On the upside, though… the ISIS fighters are indeed muhammading their pants over the prospect of being killed by a female. So all-women forces could be a positive factor in that regard.

TMOverbeck on January 6, 2016 at 11:47 AM

Brave New World? Israel has had women in the IDF for years. Woman fought from the Kibbutzes as far back as 1948. My step daughter spend three weeks in October as a volunteer on a IDF base.

There is no serious flaws.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:25 AM

Israel’s existence has been threatened since the very beginning.
From a descriptive angle, yes, women of Israel may have had to fight in combat briefly at the very beginning because their very life was threatened.

The difference here today:

is that we are talking about a normative policy that re-shapes the cultural landscape for the USA whose women are not in the same dire situation as women of Israel were. “Apples ( Israel’s situation in 1948 ) are indeed different from oranges ( current USA ) here” because of smaller population and demographics and the context.

USA is not in the same dire straits as Israel in 1948 was.

Women currently make up 3% of the IDF’s combat soldiers.[8] Women were not employed in combat roles until 2000, when the Caracal Battalion was raised.

In 2014, the IDF appointed Major Oshrat Bacher as Israel’s first female combat battalion commander.[21]
A combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[5] The unit undergoes training like any combat infantry.[6] The IDF commando K9 unit, Oketz, also drafts females as combat soldiers.[8]

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:32 AM

So instead of talking about “women serving in combat roles”….we now are talking about only a much, much smaller percentage of 3%??

So instead of talking about “women serving since 1948”, we now are talking about “women were Not employed in combat roles until year 2000″??????

Hmmmm

56andwarmweather on January 6, 2016 at 12:02 PM

Clause 16A of the military service law requires that female combat soldiers serve 3 years of mandatory service, and continue in reserves service up to age 38, even if they become mothers. These are essentially identical to the terms of service for male combat soldiers.[3] Each year, 1,500 female combat soldiers are drafted into the IDF.[6] Women currently make up 3% of the IDF’s combat soldiers.[8] Women were not employed in combat roles until 2000, when the Caracal Battalion was raised.
In 2014, the IDF appointed Major Oshrat Bacher as Israel’s first female combat battalion commander.[21]
A combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[5] The unit undergoes training like any combat infantry.[6] The IDF commando K9 unit, Oketz, also drafts females as combat soldiers.[8]

Answer.

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 9:32 AM

Not quite.

But a closer look shows Israeli women are not in direct combat special operations such as the Green Berets. Nor are they in front-line combat brigades mobilized to engage in direct heavy combat.

In the infantry, virtually all of Israel’s female combat soldiers are confined to two light battalions — the Caracal and the Lions of Jordan — which are assigned to guard the borders with Egypt and Jordan, the only Arab countries that have peace treaties with Israel.

“Uniformed Israeli women patrol the borders or help to train men for combat positions, but these important missions do not involve direct ground combat, meaning deliberate offensive action against the enemy,” said Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness. “None of America’s allies, much less potential adversaries, are treating women like men in the combat arms.”

The Israeli Ynet news service last week reported that the IDF studied the suggestion of women in tanks and rejected the idea based on physical shortcomings compared with men. Ynet also said the study found as problematic putting men and women in the intimate close quarters of a tank for days at a time.

Ynet quoted a defense official as saying, “Integrating female soldiers into tanks was harmful.”

“The decision not to assign Israeli women to armored tanks in the IDF is based on reality, not myths that often surround these discussions,” Mrs. Donnelly said.

The Times of Israel said the IDF provided a statement that read, in part, that the “possibility of opening additional combat positions to girls is being tested all the time.” As of today, “infantry and the armored corps were ruled out for women.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/?page=all

Jazz Shaw on January 6, 2016 at 11:27 AM

I have talked to my buddies still in the Teams and they are of the same mind, women will not make them a better fighting force. Not sure how many will get out because of this. I know the number isn’t 0.

Patriot Vet on January 6, 2016 at 12:08 PM

The whole discussion here is sloppy. There have been women in US “combat roles” for 20 years, flying planes, helo’s and serving as MPs.

The debate is about allowing women into some very demanding positions in SOF, Infantry, Armor, and Artillery.

It boils down to Civil Rights versus Force Effectiveness.

The purpose of the Army and Marines is to break things, kill people and occupy enemy terrain.

It is apparent to most everybody that has ever come into contact with those functions, be they male or female, that the answer to the force effectiveness question is:

No, the force is less effective with female grunts (which is different that having a few females attached to a grunt unit for some specific civic action mission)

so unless it is a civil rights decision, No on the basic question.

PS: I’m married to a retired female Army Colonel, so I have no absolute bias against women in the Army generally.

the drill sgt on January 6, 2016 at 10:50 AM

I agree with you.

But the tone, tenor, and media narrative of the current topic will be reshaped to: “this is a matter of Civil Rights for Women!!”

And the Social Justice Warriors who drive the media narrative keep re-changing the definition of “Civil Rights”.

That is why they have no problem with Obama re-drawing the “Red Lines” because they keep re-drawing the very definition of Civil Rights.

Meanwhile, us Traditionalists like myself yearn for a return to Common Sense.

56andwarmweather on January 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM

We’re a nation of 112 million men between the ages of 18 and 44. In open combat, when it’s between rifles, bayonets and tanks, there is no reason for us to have women in these areas, especially at the risk of unit strength.

If a woman meets pack requirements, marching strength, and performs in the exact specifications as a male, I still see this as an unnecessary action.

itsspideyman on January 6, 2016 at 12:38 PM

If a Republican wins, FIRST action is to reverse this.
Second is to throw ALL men like Panetta that support femnazis into the Roman Coliseum. Let the lions have their way with them.

stealthpatriot on January 6, 2016 at 12:56 PM

American women are not like Israeli or even Kurdish women.
American white women have proven to be mostly worthless compared to women of any other group.
The Democratic party should be eradicated for this. Those that disagree support terrorists.

stealthpatriot on January 6, 2016 at 1:03 PM

Jazz Shaw on January 6, 2016 at 11:27 AM

I’ve also heard from some former DS vets that many (not all, or possibly even most. But more than enough to be noticeable) of the women that did serve back then is that many of them absolutely used sex to obtain favors and better postings.

You’re a woman serving and don’t want to be posted to a particular area? Just fill out a transfer request like any of the men would, but then follow it up with a large dose of screwing whoever you needed to get it approved.

Apparently this was a known issue, but nobody would speak out on it for fear of being labeled a sexist and having their careers ruined.

Again, just hearsay. Yet entirely believable.

wearyman on January 6, 2016 at 2:59 PM

During my last tour on the Hill, this topic came up all the time in my briefings to political staffers and their elected bosses. Very few understood that we had entered combat over the past 30 years with conditions that were highly favorable to us. Trying to explain why this was so unusual was…difficult. Culturally, these are people who grew up seeing the United States ‘calling the tune’, so many of them seem unwilling to acknowledge that war it’s self is an series of x factors. Good news is most of these folks are going to be out of job soon. With the new blood that is coming up on the Hill, the reality of war is being forced on the rest of the political class. This is the last gasp of the left and SJW crowd. It remains to be seen how much damage they can do, in the remaining days of this administration.

flackcatcher on January 6, 2016 at 5:10 PM