NY-Times - Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

texas_ex2000

texas_ex2000

2,500+ Posts
We're not talking about women in combat support roles, or serving on warships, or flying combat planes. We're not talking about women who in support roles, may find themselves under fire.

We're talking about front line roles where the mission is to assault opposing troops. Does this mean women must register for the Draft?

NY-Times Article
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I'm not worried about a woman handling combat stress or optimally operating war time battle field equipment.

I am worried about a woman captured by extremists enemy soldiers or the 130 lb woman dragging or lifting her wounded non-ambulatory 200 lb fellow soldier out of the line of fire and lastly, two hormone filled 20 year old horny soldiers having a f-buddy and not paying attention to their assignments.
 
I may be wrong on this, but I don't think women have to pass the same physical tests as men do. If they can pass those same tests then allow them to be on the front lines if they choose to. I'm not for it personally, and I think it will lead to much greater problems.
 
No No No! Equality! Must. Have. It. Nothing else matters! Women and Men are the same! Thats the only answer!
catfight.gif
 
I'm all for women in combat. The women that want to be there have already been there, From 2003 to now they have served in Combat Support and Combat Service Support roles and have always have been open to females.

Combat Arms
Combat Support
Combat Service Support

This is not a win for women's rights groups or for anyone thinking females can't fight.

In Kandahar I saw USAF MP female snipers with M40s.

USMC Females were in gun turrets driving up and down MSR's from Um Qusar to the Green Zone.

They've been there, took the risks, fought and died.

This SGT has got my respect:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17medal.html?_r=0
 
Not a whole lot to add, since texas_ex2000 and the Doc pretty much nailed it. This is complete idiocy for very obvious reasons. It's nothing more than political correctness run amok.

One thing that I will add is that the constitutionality of excluding women from Selective Service just got a lot weaker. The exclusion of women from combat was a major reason why the US Supreme Court allowed gender discrimination in the Selective Service. See Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). With that distinction now gone, I don't see how the Court can uphold the Selective Service's discrimination.

NOTE - When the Court does invalidate the Selective Service's sex discrimination, it will be wrong. The Constitution doesn't require the federal government to grant equal protection of the laws. That requirement applies only to states. The Court has applied the concept of "equal protection" to the federal government. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). However, there was absolutely no textual support for it and no evidence that the founders intended any such thing. It was one of the most intellectually dishonest and legally weak opinions ever handed down by the Court. Basically, Chief Justice Warren took a crap on a piece of paper and submitted it as the Court's opinion.
 
GreenDragonSix,

I completely get your point of view. It's completely valid. I'm not saying women should be out of the military either. They have served side by side with men in our armed services since the revolution. They have served in combat, have served gallantly, honorably, and bravely.

Serving in combat (which I have done as a naval officer on a reconnaissance aircraft and with an intelligence support detachment...both times with women), and serving in a front line combat unit (which I have not done), are decidedly different. At the least, it's a gray area.

I just don't feel it's necessary to push the gray area. The military's purpose isn't to provide a career track for individuals, men or women. Because of physical issues (which I received a waiver for), I was a restricted line officer and my promotion prospects in comparison to my pilot/SEAL/ or ship driver buddies, was less. Ironically, as an intel officer I got shot at (I never fired a round at anyone) more than most of my line officer classmates from OCS. The military isn't fair. It's not suppose to be. It's suppose to execute a mission.
 
While not equal, the promotion opportunity gap for women in the military is a little overblown.

The current Joint Chiefs of Staff:
GEN Dempsey, USA - Chairman: tank officer, MOS NOT open to women

ADM Winfield, USN - Vice Chairman: naval aviator, MOS OPEN to women

GEN Odierno, USA - Chief of Staff of the Army: artillery officer, MOS OPEN to women

Gen Amos, USMC - Command of the Marine Corps: naval aviator, MOS OPEN to women

ADM Greenert, USN - Chief of Naval Operations: submarine officer, MOS NOT open to women*

Gen Welsh, USAF - Chief of Staff USAF: pilot, MOS OPEN to women

That's 4 of 6. Additionally, 2 of the previous 3 Chairmen were from MOSs open to women. And the 5 previous CNOs were from warfare communities open to women. There are women admirals commanding carrier strike groups, our most powerful military assets.

And while I disagree with having women in front line combat units, there's no reason at all why we couldn't/shouldn't have a woman as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

*Correction: The first class of women started serving aboard ballistic missile submarines just last year. So that's 5 of 6.
 
There is not currently a standard 'number' of push-ups that an infantryman must do. it is based on a scale (predicated on age) and achieving a certain score. Females are typically given much lower true numbers to achieve that same score. For example a 30 yr old male may need to do 49 push ups to get a 70% score, whereas a female may need to only get 25 to get that same 70%. Sit ups are judged fairly evenly but the run is just as lopsided.

When this is pushed through, I'm sure the same double-standards will exist with respect to physical abilities.

They may allow the elite units (Rangers, SF, MARSOC, Recon etc) to set actual minimum true numbers test but the usual basic infrantry unit is going to get stuck with a female that scores 70% but can only do 25 push ups.

Glad I'm not going to be counting on her to save my butt.
 
Panetta probably saw Aliens and thought; "we need some kickass ******* in combat, like Vasquez".

At what point should you quit worrying about "promotion opportunities" and hurting people's egos and worry about what you're doing to our military's capabities as a fighting force?
 
I'm just left of central on the political ideology and I think women in specific combat roles is bad. I've seen first hand how much the vast majority struggle with basic training and PT tests that are quite less rigorous than those that their mail counterparts endure. When I went through Basic Training @ Ft. Jackson (SC) the female companies quite literally had 50% of their members walking around with medical issues. Nothing like seeing a platoon of 40 women heading to chow with 20 of them on crutches. It was at that point that I was convinced that most female bodies simply aren't capable of meeting the physical needs of combat. I'd be OK with them passing the SAME PT tests as men for qualification of combat duty. Of course, like Texas_2000 said then you have the concern of challenges of proximity. From my experience their is already challenges with this in non-combat teams. Yes, sexual relations is a major challenge in the military. Putting them in close proximity weeks on end (think an outpost in Afghanistan) would easily result in an explosion of military pregnancies and/or sexual assaults.
 
After listening to a recently retired MGen who was head of Delta force I agree with him.

There are many combat specialties where women can perform and do as well as if not better than men. One exanple is pilot.
But he made the point that is the hard core combat areas. inffantry artillery and most definitely special forces it would not work, mission wise.
The women they have out there defending women is combat have been pilots, a hole different ball game

The issue of women not getting promoted to flag rank becasue they aren't in combat specialites is a bot of a red herring since, as pointed out above most men don't make it either
all that said i do understand and admire any who would willing go into combat in certain areas.
 
for several hundred years combat duty was limited to heterosexual males, supposedly.

With our new society, I propose combat roles should be limited to gays and women to make up for the past injustices.

THis discrimination must be righted.
 
Gay men have no chance of getting pregnant.

If you have asthma, allergies, you're physically disqualified from front line combat duty. Even if you think your asthma/allergies is well under control, and you haven't had an episode in years...you're DQd from that duty. The time, money, training, and most importantly readiness lost in the event you have an asthma attack, no matter how remote, is a risk too great.

That's the standard. Unfortunately, pregnancy is a bigger risk than asthma/allergies. Women, who had no plans to get pregnant...even women taking the pill (which is not 100%, prone to human error), get pregnant. As the deployment date approaches there are plenty of women who intentionally get pregnant to avoid getting shipped out.

You don't have that problem with gay men.
 
If a person can meet the minimum physical and mental requirements of front line combat, godspeed.

My only question is what does this do to field medics and or field hospitals, what are the trauma or severe wounded differneces between a male and female. Would this require more people to handle as the medical needs for a man and a woman are different or is that a non factor in combat situations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top