BREAKING: Panetta opens Combat Roles to Women!!!!

[Seawytch]

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

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

 

[Truthmatters]

yeah baby

 

[waltky]

Granny goin' through her closet lookin' fer her old army boots so's she can kick some jihadi butt...

Women in Combat 'Part of Another Social Experiment,' Says Retired Army General
January 24, 2013 - Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the former head of the U.S. Special Forces Command, says infantry and other front-line units are no place for women, and it has nothing to do with their courage or capabilities:

"The people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment, and they have never lived nor fought with an infantry or Special Forces unit," Boykin said in a statement released by the conservative Family Research Council, for whom he now works. "These units have the mission of closing with and destroying the enemy, sometimes in close hand-to-hand combat. They are often in sustained operations for extended periods, during which they have no base of operations nor facilities. Their living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions."

Integrating the genders in direct-combat situations "places additional and unnecessary burdens on leaders at all levels," Boykin said. "While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations. "Is the social experiment worth placing this burden on small unit leaders? I think not," he concluded. Boykin is a former deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence who worked with the CIA in the 1990s.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in one of his last official acts, is expected to announce Thursday that more than 230,000 battlefront posts — many in Army and Marine infantry units and maybe in elite commando jobs — are now open to women. The historic change, which was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.

Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while decisions on others, such as special operations forces, may take longer, the Associated Press reported. Military service chiefs will have until January 2016 to make the case that some positions should remain closed to women. Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes Wednesday on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement. The new order expands the Defense Department's order of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army.

MORE

See also:

Gen. Dempsey: If Women Can’t Meet Military Standard, Pentagon Will Ask ‘Does It Really Have to Be That High?’
January 25, 2013 - Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”

Dempsey’s comments came at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Sec. Leon Panetta Thursday, announcing the shift in Defense Department policy opening up all combat positions to women. Dempsey, who is at the pinnacle of the military’s top brass, was asked by a reporter: “You indicated that -- well, at least it sounds like that there may be certain combat operational forays that women might be excluded from still. I mean, what would be the reasons for that? What sorts of operations?”

Dempsey replied: “No, I wouldn't put it in terms of operations, Jim. What I would say is that, as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict, not just COIN, counterinsurgency, we really need to have standards that apply across all of those.” He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

As CNSNews.com reported, the military acknowledges that women will not be able to fill every combat role:

But Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that "everyone is entitled to a chance." “If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job--and let me be clear, we’re not talking about reducing the qualifications for a job--if they can meet the qualifications for the job then they should have the right to serve,” Panetta said at a Pentagon press conference. The Defense Department announced Thursday that it would rescind its 1994 policy restricting women from serving in combat-focused positions such as infantry units, potentially opening up 230,000 positions to female service members.

Source

 

[tyroneweaver]

men have turned into such fairies women are going to assume combat roles....rich

 

[JQPublic1]

Break out the birth control pills. Whenever men and women are put in close quarters, such as foxholes or quonset huts, there is bound to be intimacy. Nature will find a way!

 

[waltky]

Granny ready - she gettin' out her ol' army boots from the 'Big One'...

US military vows to put women in combat roles by 2016
July 25, 2013 > Officials from all military service branches told Congress this week they can open combat positions to women by 2016 without lowering physical or performance standards.

Six months after the Pentagon announced it was lifting a ban on women serving in ground-combat units, military officials charged with implementing the policy said they’ve started the studies needed to make it work. “I don’t envy you,” Representative Joe Heck, R-Nev., said Wednesday at a hearing by the House Armed Services Committee’s military personnel subcommittee. “As you know, there’s not universal acceptance of this concept.”

Ending the ban will open as many as 237,000 positions to women by January 2016. The three-year process will require what officials describe as a methodical review of the physical standards needed for each combat job to determine how best to measure fitness and whether some positions will need to remain restricted to men. “We’re not going to lower standards,” said Juliet Beyler, the Defense Department’s director of officer and enlisted personnel management. “It’s not a matter of lowering or raising standards. The key is to validate the standard to make sure it’s the right standard for the occupation.”

While women have been a permanent part of the military services — as opposed to separate auxiliaries — since a 1948 act of Congress, they have long been excluded from infantry, artillery and other ground-combat jobs. After a decade of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that sent more than 280,000 female troops into war zones, Pentagon leaders and women who served have said gender discrimination no longer makes sense. “I’m real excited to get this done,” said Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., who described the task as providing equal opportunity for women. “Combat performance is an important issue when people are looking at moving up in all of these organizations.”

The plan wasn’t embraced as whole-heartedly by all members of the panel. Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., said she was worried that integrating women into small ground-combat units risked an increase of sexual assaults in the ranks. “Have you anticipated what’s going to happen?” Walorski asked. “What’s happening now doesn’t work. Is there research? Is there a plan?” Beyler said expanding opportunities for women is part of the Pentagon’s strategy to combat sexual assaults. “The more we treat service members equally, the more likely they are to treat each other with respect,” she said.

MORE

 

[Vox]

I would like to see if the same nut-jobs who cheer this idiotic decision will be as cheerful when the first news of poor women captured and extensively abused by their captors emerges.

or those idiots think that women captured as enemy combatants will be treated as ladies in the salon?

 

[g5000]

Huge mistake. It is the height of stupidity to place political correctness over national security just so a few more women can get promotions. In over twenty years of service, I met only one female who was able to endure the same physical demands that even the weakest males were subjected to.

 

[Vox]

men have turned into such fairies women are going to assume combat roles....rich

you can't blame men for this one. it is cheered in feminist quarters as a "big victory"

 

[Vox]

Huge mistake. It is the height of stupidity to place political correctness over national security just so a few more women can get promotions.

it is idiocy at it's full bloom

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well,

We're now a military that won't be able to beat China, Russia or a dozen other nation. Leftist don't think about reality as they're pie in the sky.

 

[Spoonman]

i guess now they'll be starting a war to put them to use.

 

[martybegan]

Break out the birth control pills. Whenever men and women are put in close quarters, such as foxholes or quonset huts, there is bound to be intimacy. Nature will find a way!

With modern technology the solution is simple. A pregnant solider results in a 1 year prison stay for mommy and daddy, and then a dishonorable discharge.

 

[g5000]

Break out the birth control pills. Whenever men and women are put in close quarters, such as foxholes or quonset huts, there is bound to be intimacy. Nature will find a way!

With modern technology the solution is simple. A pregnant solider results in a 1 year prison stay for mommy and daddy, and then a dishonorable discharge.

Is this the right wing solution? Because I see the unintended consequences of such an overkill policy. This won't stop couples from having sex, but it will result in a lot of secret abortions. As you say, modern technology makes it simple.

 

[martybegan]

Break out the birth control pills. Whenever men and women are put in close quarters, such as foxholes or quonset huts, there is bound to be intimacy. Nature will find a way!

With modern technology the solution is simple. A pregnant solider results in a 1 year prison stay for mommy and daddy, and then a dishonorable discharge.

Is this the right wing solution? Because I see the unintended consequences of such an overkill policy. This won't stop couples from having sex, but it will result in a lot of secret abortions. As you say, modern technology makes it simple.

Its my solution. I dont have a dog in the abortion fight except that I find Roe V Wade to be made up supreme court hokum.

So up the prison term to 5 years, I have a feeling that would at least lead to more proper birth control use, and an end to the "im pregnant ship me home" escape clauses that have occured in our military.

Also, to be fair ship and jail the daddy if he is a solider as well.

 

[OriginalShroom]

As long as they don't change the standards that must be met, then not many women will pass the physical requirements.

Then the question will be, will there be enough women who qualify to make it economically feasible?

I do find it strange that one person has the authority to overturn national policy like this. A person who was appointed, not elected.

Something doesn't seem right. It seems to me that this would have to come from Congress.

 

[usmcstinger]

Leon Peneta never served in combat. He has absolutely no understanding of the problems it creates.
If a woman is assigned to an Infantry Unit, will she have the right to refuse the assignment?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Even my grandmother thinks women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat. Me, I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. Now if you send the mother and the father of three children into combat, and they both die in combat, you have orphaned those three children. One (namely the woman) should be made to serve in a less dangerous role in the military.

 

[Vox]

Even my grandmother thinks women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat. Me, I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. Now if you send the mother and the father of three children into combat, and they both die in combat, you have orphaned those three children. One (namely the woman) should be made to serve in a less dangerous role in the military.

the reason why women historically weren't required to serve in combat is threefold.
1) men are more easily reproducible than women - because one man can inseminate hundreds of women( and therefore the rate of replacement is 1: many) but the woman killed has to be replaced in a 1:1 ratio.
It is in society's best interest not to let women be killed
2) women as prisoners are much more vulnerable and therefore a weaker link
3) physically women are weaker and their anatomy and physiology is less reliable in combat where just physical strength is needed sometime more than anything else.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'd prefer that our men not have to go to war, but some of you want our women too as well. Id rather spare them as much as possible.

What's next? Should we be preparing to send children to war?