Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is unveiling plans Thursday to allow women to serve in thousands of military jobs closer to the front lines, reflecting the realities of the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Defense officials say the new rules will still mean that woman are barred from serving as infantry, armor and special operations forces considered the most dangerous combat jobs. But the changes will open the door for more opportunities and promotions for women by allowing them to perform jobs they are already performing, but in battalions, which are closer to the fighting and once considered too dangerous for women.
A 1994 combat exclusion policy bans women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and often include top command and support staff, while the battalions are usually in closer contact with the enemy.
In the past decade, the necessities of war propelled women into jobs such as medics, military police and intelligence officers, and they were sometimes attached but not formally assigned to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
The officials said the new rules will formally allow women to work in those jobs at the battalion level.
"We believe that it's very important to explore ways to offer more opportunities to women in the military," Pentagon press secretary George Little said Thursday. "This review has been thorough and extensive," with input from all branches of the military.
Little said that even after the new policy takes effect, the Pentagon will continue to search for ways to open up additional positions to women in the military.
The latest changes, which open up as many as 14,000 additional jobs for women, would have the greatest effect on the Army and Marine Corps. Those two services ban women from more jobs than the Navy and Air Force do, largely because of the infantry positions.
Defense officials spoke about the report on condition of anonymity because it had not yet been publicly released. The report will be sent to Congress Thursday, and if lawmakers take no action after 30 work days, the policy will take effect.
Though numbers vary by service branch, women make up more than 14 percent of the nation's armed forces that's roughly 200,000 women in the active duty force of 1.43 million. There long has been opposition to putting them in combat, based on questions of whether women have the necessary strength and stamina, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion. There also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women coming home from war in body bags.
But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where battlefield lines are scattered and blurred, and insurgents can be around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat. Some 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars, roughly 12 percent of all those who have served there. Of the more than 6,300 who have been killed, 144 were women.
Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis said he doesn't see how the new policy helps the national security of the country.
"This does not dismiss the sexual tension issues, nor does it dismiss the differences physiologically between men and women in terms of cardiovascular fitness," Maginnis said.
The Service Women's Action Network's response was mixed.
"On the plus side, this is a huge step in the right direction," said Anu Bhagwati, former Marine Corps captain and executive director of the network. However, she said it was "extremely disappointing" that the ban would continue on women becoming infantry.
"To continue such a ban is to ignore the talents and leadership that women bring to the military, and it further penalizes servicewomen by denying them the opportunity for future promotions and assignments that are primarily given to personnel from combat arms specialties."
"It's time military leadership establish the same level playing field to qualified women to enter the infantry, special forces and other all-male units," Bhagwati said.
No, they have not been serving in combat situations. As long as these women get no accommodation and have to meet the same standards, sure! But they don't get to say "I'm pregnant" or "I'm a nursing mother" and walk away.
What will happen is that the standards will be lowered, female feelings will have to be considered. The same thing that happened to the police departments. The military will have to become more sensitive.
No, they have not been serving in combat situations. As long as these women get no accommodation and have to meet the same standards, sure! But they don't get to say "I'm pregnant" or "I'm a nursing mother" and walk away.
What will happen is that the standards will be lowered, female feelings will have to be considered. The same thing that happened to the police departments. The military will have to become more sensitive.
No, they have not been serving in combat situations. As long as these women get no accommodation and have to meet the same standards, sure! But they don't get to say "I'm pregnant" or "I'm a nursing mother" and walk away.
What will happen is that the standards will be lowered, female feelings will have to be considered. The same thing that happened to the police departments. The military will have to become more sensitive.
Actually Katz, they pretty much have, when bases in Iraq or Afghanistan got attacked they also had to grab their weapon and defend the perimeter, plus the women that went on convoys also had to engage the enemy, and that happened ALOT. Female Soldiers didn't just lie on the ground and have us men protect them. These rules and regulations about women not being in "combat" positions means very fucking little when your boots hit the ground in a combat zone, believe me.
No, they have not been serving in combat situations. As long as these women get no accommodation and have to meet the same standards, sure! But they don't get to say "I'm pregnant" or "I'm a nursing mother" and walk away.
What will happen is that the standards will be lowered, female feelings will have to be considered. The same thing that happened to the police departments. The military will have to become more sensitive.
Actually Katz, they pretty much have, when bases in Iraq or Afghanistan got attacked they also had to grab their weapon and defend the perimeter, plus the women that went on convoys also had to engage the enemy, and that happened ALOT. Female Soldiers didn't just lie on the ground and have us men protect them. These rules and regulations about women not being in "combat" positions means very fucking little when your boots hit the ground in a combat zone, believe me.
Exactly. One of my best friends is a female assigned to to a Navy EOD unit she was in Afghanistan along with the bomb disposal teams.
Actually Katz, they pretty much have, when bases in Iraq or Afghanistan got attacked they also had to grab their weapon and defend the perimeter, plus the women that went on convoys also had to engage the enemy, and that happened ALOT. Female Soldiers didn't just lie on the ground and have us men protect them. These rules and regulations about women not being in "combat" positions means very fucking little when your boots hit the ground in a combat zone, believe me.
Exactly. One of my best friends is a female assigned to to a Navy EOD unit she was in Afghanistan along with the bomb disposal teams.
Yup, we just had a female LT die in Afghanistan working with a special Ops team off post, technically she was not even supposed to be there. People who never been in the Military see the nicely written rules by someone sitting in a comfy desk at the Pentagon and assume the Military is like a civilian job where you follow your job description to a T, anyone who has served knows that is not the case in the Military.
The idea of women serving under arms in combat zones while there are able-bodied men lounging at home is offensive to me. And while existing circumstances of an all-volunteer military along with wholly unnecessary and aggressive military engagements, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, present situations which are apart from the American ideal, allowing women to serve under arms when not absolutely necessary is setting a bad precedent.
When I was in the Marine Corps our WMs were trained in the use of infantry weapons and were capable of raising a lot of hell -- if necessary. But the idea of assigning them to line companies was unheard of.
The idea of women serving under arms in combat zones while there are able-bodied men lounging at home is offensive to me. And while existing circumstances of an all-volunteer military along with wholly unnecessary and aggressive military engagements, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, present situations which are apart from the American ideal, allowing women to serve under arms when not absolutely necessary is setting a bad precedent.
When I was in the Marine Corps (1956 - 1960) our WMs were trained in the use of infantry weapons and were capable of raising a lot of hell -- if necessary. But the idea of assigning them to line companies was unheard of.
