On Thursday, U.S. military officials decided to lift the country's ban on women serving in combat, reversing a 1994 rule that prohibited women from such roles.
Recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta's decision allowing women to serve on the front lines and elite positions in combat will be historic for women's rights supporters. According to USA Today:
"The services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALs and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer ...
The move expands the Pentagon's action - nearly a year ago - that opened 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."
As expected, there was dissension as the announcement came. Quoted on usnews.nbcnews.com, Republican California Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Marine combat veteran, said that the question was whether the change would “actually make our military better at operating in combat and killing the enemy.”
“What needs to be explained is how this decision, when all is said and done, increases combat effectiveness rather than being a move done for political purposes,” Hunter said.
And Ryan Smith, a Marine infantryman in Iraq, wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal.
In 2003, his unit had gone more than a month without showering and then was lined up naked to be pressure-washed.
“It would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene,” Smith wrote. “In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and a former POW in Vietnam, voiced support for the decision. But he expressed caution, saying he wanted “to make sure that the standards, particularly the physical standards, are met so that the combat efficiency of the units are not degraded.”
And a CNN thread that quickly began included Twitter handle sallymae:
sallymae: I hate to tell you guys, but as a WOMAN VETERAN, we serve and do the same jobs as MEN and get the same pay OR HIGHER than men. Women outrank men, and there are more women officers than men. If you're too insecure to handle that, then prove it. Put on a pair of combat boots and grow some!
I can bet the trolls sitting at home with beer bellies and no jobs are the ones disrespecting the women who will be saving your butts! Enlist -- serve our country -- and then come talk to me! BTW -- I can kick you ass any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
What do you think? Is it time for women to head to the front lines? Will efficiency of military units be maintained? Is this a decision made by political correctness or practicality?
Tell us in your comments. Then vote in our poll.
Joint Chiefs Chairman: If Women Can’t Meet Combat Standards, Maybe Lower The Standards. Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/joint-chiefs-chairman-if-women-cant-meet-combat-standards-maybe-lower-the-standards/#ixzz2J6HJugWm
The idea that women should meet lower standards is dangerous reducing the fighting capability of the entire unit.
Not every woman will be able to meet the other standards, but as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said "Everyone is entitled to a chance." Personally, I would rather no one was in combat positions, but human nature does not allow for that. I would far rather see equality that would encourage males to assume more female roles in society, rather than the other way around, but I guess you have to take baby steps...
I wonder if women will expect there heads be shaved like men in the name of equality?
"Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18 thru 25. Women still do not register. (January 24, 2013)" So, they still are not equal. Let's see if the movement to change this happens. From personal experience, combat can be a dirty, grueling, filthy, fatiguing, horrific event in which the most basic human survival instincts drive combatants to survive and I do not wish it upon any young woman.
WOW! Now there's a world power we should model ourselves after. Women continue to demand access to everything a man has or does and yet refuse to reciprocate. Maybe I would like to enjoy some of the things women are able to enjoy in those exclusive "women only" clubs of theirs? It seems that our society has "evolved" to the point that everyone has rights except men - especially white men. And please, let's be PC at all costs. Everyone gets a trophy nowadays - even if you come in last. So there really is no need to win the war/battle or anything. I'm sure our enemies will make allowances for hand-to-hand combat, restroom usage, etc. for our new wave of femme fatales. Especially in the Middle East where women are really put up on a pedestal.
As for physical abilities, I am not convinced that all of the current physical standards translate to performance on the battlefield or battle conditions. As indicated these standards need to be re-examined. Maybe some need to be toughened or created and others reduced or eliminated. It should be about having appropriate standard that relate to combat conditions whether they are equal or not for men and women. For example men might be required to do a forced 12 mile march carrying a 100 lb. pack and women a 15 mile march carrying an 80 lb. pack: strength vs. endurance, both having value during combat. There are other countries where women serve in combat positions with men with high military standards like Israel that could be used as example of military standard for men and women. There are very strong women and very weak men. I agree that both men and women must have the physical attributes to best execute and survive combat situations when sent in harm’s way.
Last night I had the strangest dream I'd ever dreamed before I dreamed the world had all agreed To put an end to war I dreamed I saw a mighty room Filled with women and men And the paper they were signing said They'd never fight again And when the paper was all signed And a million copies made They all joined hands and bowed their heads And grateful pray'rs were prayed And the people in the streets below Were dancing 'round and 'round While swords and guns and uniforms Were scattered on the ground Last night I had the strangest dream I'd never dreamed before I dreamed the world had all agreed To put an end to war.
And this dated stereotype about head shaving, I guess you folks missed that whole Sinead O'Connor look about 25 years ago, too. I'm pretty sure the last thing someone with the courage to volunteer for the military is worrying about is having their head shaved.
We probably agree it's not fair that women aren't required to register for the SS. I can appreciate this being a source of resentment, and with some tweaking to the definition of service it need not be. Another way young people could serve is in the area of diplomacy, perhaps under the Department of State instead of the DoD.