Hello:

She's a reality today.. Women will be serving in FULL combat roles. I'm thrilled about it. You? Of course, women have been serving in combat for years. They just didn't get the promotions that came along with it. So, it's NOT really about combat. It's about a glass ceiling that got broken.

How come I have the feeling that my right wing friends aren't going to like this?

excon

It's stupid . In OIF they sent a special rescue mission behind Iraqi lines to do a special rescue for a PFC because her capture was bad pr.
I suppose you can make a case for it in an all volunteer force and in a world of asymetrical warfare where combat is not as linear as it was . But what happens if we ever have to go to a draft ,and suddenly women aren't given a choice? What happens to your equal protection notions then ?

In fact ;this will open up a challenge to the constitutionality of Selective Service. How do I know that ? Because it was challenged in court when it was reenacted .
Rostker v. Goldberg, the Court ruled in favor of the Selective Service. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion .

“Congress acted well within its constitutional authority to raise and regulate armies and navies when it authorized the registration of men and not women.”

In the decision he stated that "the existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them”
Well that logic goes out the window if women serve in combat positions. So the question becomes... do they now change the law to draft women ? And if they don't ,why isn't it a 5th amendment violation ? Maybe that's the hidden reason... the Obots want to end the Selective Service system . That would be like a budget cut item .

The Marines asked for female volunteers . 2 signed up and failed the Marine basic infantry course . So what will you have... different physical standards for the same job ?

Hello tom:


if we ever have to go to a draft ,and suddenly women aren't given a choice? What happens to your equal protection notions then ? The equal protection clause doesn't mention gender.. Men weren't equally protected when women were excused from the draft.

Of course, they'll be drafted. Will there be some women, who harbor 20th Century notions, that'll complain?? Sure. Fortunately, that didn't stop the progress women have made.

Whatever adjustments the military has to make, they'll make. Just like they did upon the repeal of DADT. You were against that too, weren't you?

Excon

You are behind the times, women in the military have been in equal opportunity for the last 20 years in Canada.

Hello tick:

We'da been there sooner, but our right wing is holding us back.

excon

Just like they did upon the repeal of DADT. You were against that too, weren't you?

Irrelevant . There are no physical differences. Guess the US populace will have to get used to women getting captured in battle .

BTW ; I guess the Constitution doesn't apply to Leon Panetta either...

Article 1 sec 8 clause 14 gives CONGRESS the power To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Last law I saw on the subject ,Congress prohibitted women in front line roles. You may not like it ;but Congress has the final say.

By the way.. Canada already tried this . Women were recruited for the 16-week infantry training course which was identical to the men'scourse. The outcome was described as the 'high cost of recruiting women that yielded poor results. There were disruptions to cohesion and high rates of attrition for females in labor intensive specialties due to lower average upper body strength and higher rates of stress fractures.
“Of the 60 women recruited for the Canadian Infantry since last year, only one has successfully completed the 16-
week training program and is serving in the infantry, according to Cmdr. Judith Harper"
Canada Puts Women on Front Line : Combat: Many governments send women into combat during war. Canada, however, is recruiting women during peacetime. - Page 2 - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-23/news/vw-402_1_women-recruits/2)

Thanks for your 1989 article tom.
Here's a newer one: Women filled 8.3% of Canada's combat positions in Afghanistan: study | News | National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/25/women-filled-8-3-of-canadas-combat-positions-in-afghanistan-study/)

Have women grown stronger there ? Or has physical standards been dropped degrading the close combat capabilities of the Army ?

Here are the PT standards currently for the Army.. let a woman fulfill them and then OK.
http://www.apft-standards.com/

Edit.. let them have the same pt standards as the men
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm

Hello tom:


You may not like it ;but Congress has the final say...
Have women grown stronger there ?Couple things.. Apparently the services think THEY have the final authority, because they're DOING it.

Women haven't grown stronger.. Combat has become less physical and more technical.

Excon

have women grown stronger there ? Or has physical standards been dropped degrading the close combat capabilities of the Army ?Don't know, don't care.

Sorry ;women in the military have a hard enough time defending themselves against male soldiers in the ranks ,let alone enemy in close combat.
In The Invisible War the facts presented are painfully clear. The Department of Defense estimates over 19,000 sexual assaults occurred in the military in 2010 alone. A conservative estimate states over 20% of women in the military will be sexually assaulted.
The Military's 'Invisible War:' A Call To Action To Stop Sexual Assaults - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/katetaylor/2012/06/21/the-militarys-invisible-war-a-call-to-action-to-stop-sexual-assaults/)

Hello again, tom:

Right wingers have been blaming rape on women for as long as I can remember... The problem is the RAPISTS, not the women..

excon

And I of course am not blaming rape on women. . I'm saying that it is a indicator of the comparative physical strengths .I'm saying that physical strength is a factor in close combat and it always will be ,regardless of how high tech the occupation has become.

Physical strength, when was the last time a fight was really "hand to hand" ? My guess is seldom, it is normally rocket lauchers, snipers, and exchange of fire fights between buildings.

My cousin was in one in Iraq . Yes it does happen . There are accounts of hand to hand fights in Fallujah . In Afghanistan it happened even more frequently as the Taliban would set up ambushes . All you have to do is look on the web.

Strength isn't what is needed in hand-to-hand combat (or are all of our males in the military former football tackles?). A skilled fighter knows how to use the enemy's own weight against him.

Glad you bought up weight. Today's troops have armor ,gear ,weapons ,ammo that has them carrying 100lbs + depending on the requirements of the mission. Some of the women barely weigh more than that. By the way "hand to hand " is more commonly called 'close combat' ,and in an urban environment ,it happens more that one would think in this video war age .

I'll bet they will figure this out in boot camp and before she is shipped overseas. I can just see the Dems smacking themselves on the forehead, "Whatever were we thinking? Women are just itty-bitty things that have no place in the military. They need to be at home making up first-aid kits and putting together CARE packages for our men in uniform."

There are plenty of roles for women in the forces. Don't be silly . Just not "full combat roles " as Excon describes .

I know a lot of women bigger and stronger than men (smarter too). And the women in the military will certainly be trained well and have walked miles in full gear before being shipped off to war. I'm not worried except for the idiot males who can't keep their mind on the business at hand.

Woman have been voluntering and serving a long time now and if they do meet the challenge they should have he same benefits as the men they serve with. They used the same arguments as they used to deny blacks, and gays, the same opportunities to serve.

Implication of inferiority in ability isn't a fact, and has been debunked every time by actual performances.

Woman have been voluntering and serving a long time now and if they do meet the challenge they should have he same benefits as the men they serve with.
I don't deny that at all.

Implication of inferiority in ability isn't a fact, and has been debunked every time by actual performances.
You have no evidence of that since it hasn't happened yet.

You have no evidence of that since it hasn't happened yet.
In other countries, it has.

Like where ? Israel ? Where women have been barred from combat since 1950 ?

Woman have served in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years and are a quarter million strong and combat roles are voluntary and takes 2 to 3 years to advance to.

Tammy Duckworth didn't lose her legs in a mess hall and many females drive tanks, and trucks, and fly planes. What infantry is the only combat roles?

But of course the evidence and facts are not part of conservative decision making. But the joint chiefs have had enough evidence (and lawsuits) to make changes.

like where ?Instead of picking a country where women are barred why don't you go back to the link I gave you on page 1?

Woman have served in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years and are a quarter million strong and combat roles are voluntary and takes 2 to 3 years to advance to.

Tammy Duckworth didn't lose her legs in a mess hall and many females drive tanks, and trucks, and fly planes. What infantry is the only combat roles?
But of course the evidence and facts are not part of conservative decision making. But the joint chiefs have had enough evidence (and lawsuits) to make changes.

The issue is infantry combat roles .I am well aware that women serve other functions already . Where they perform the same as a man in those positions I believe they are already getting equal compensation.

How many women have become generals?

I don't know... I know there are women Generals .There is even an openly gay woman General . There are many more females in the officers corps. I imagine they are represented closely to the proportion of women in the services.
What difference ? This isn't a social experiment . The job of the military is to kill in the most efficient manner. The only thing that matters is effectiveness.
That being said ;I think our Generals overall do not do their jobs well overall ;and many of them should be purged . Maybe it would be better to replace them with females .

That has nothing to do with the issue of infantry ground forces.

5 percent of general officers in the Army are women, which includes mobilized Army Reserve and Army National Guard general officers.

Female military members sue to serve in combat - News - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2012/11/27/female-military-members-sue-serve-combat/6Q2jZNCGRqONYkhFM5gzOL/story.html)


Marine Corps Capt. Zoe Bedell said she left active duty, in large part, because of the combat exclusion policy. Bedell said she was frustrated that her advancement in the Marines was blocked by her inability to serve directly in combat units.

Lawsuit targets women's exclusion from direct combat jobs - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/27/local/la-me-women-in-combat-20121128)


Capt. Zoe Bedell graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In deployments to Afghanistan, she oversaw "female engagement teams" that accompanied male infantry units into the field — living and working in identical conditions.

Capt. Zoe Bedell graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In deployments to Afghanistan, she oversaw "female engagement teams" that accompanied male infantry units into the field — living and working in identical conditions.
Clearly if she was doing that job then that is not what Panetta is referring to.

Bedell said she left active duty last year because the policy limited her potential for promotion by failing to officially recognize her combat leadership experience. (In military parlance, the female teams that played a critical role in communicating with Afghan women were "attached," not "assigned," to infantry units.)

On Tuesday, she joined a federal lawsuit challenging the blanket exclusion.

"The modern battlefield means there are no front lines or safe areas," Bedell, 27 and now a Marine Corps reservist, said during a news conference at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. The ACLU is representing her, three female members of the Marines, the California Air National Guard and the Army Reserve, and the nonprofit Service Women's Action Network.

"My Marines supported infantry units," Bedell said. "They patrolled every day. They wore the same gear. They carried the same rifles. And when my Marines were attacked, they fought back."

According to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the sweeping restriction based on gender is unconstitutional because it is not justified by a specific governmental objective, as the U.S. Supreme Court has required.

Women effectively serve in direct combat, the suit said, often without the level of training provided to their male counterparts or the recognition that would enable them to advance.

"The policy has the effect of closing off whole career fields for women," said Ariela Migdal, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Women Rights Project. "We demand that the U.S. military bring its policy into line with modern society."

I wonder if you read the whole links.

If they can pull their weight and that of their 250 pound male counterpart to safety after he gets shot then go get 'em Jane.

Hello again, tom:

Right wingers have been blaming rape on women for as long as I can remember... The problem is the RAPISTS, not the women..

excon

This is a huge generalization and I would say not true. There are a few nutcases of course, but the vast majority of conservatives do not believe what you are suggesting and do not promote this idea. I certainly don't.

I am on the right myself. I have no problem with gender being a non-issue in the military. The physical standards should not be lowered or tiered to accommodate women, however and I don't think it's necessary. If it's necessary to carry 50 pounds or run 10 miles or whatever for a particular role, then that standard should stay. Not all women, and not all men will make the cut, but many will. I think many women today are more athletic and considerably stronger. Strength is now admired in women, and is no longer seen as mannish as it used to be. Women's sports have come a long way and are more physical than ever.

Thanks to Billie Jean King for that one!

Here's the deal... her unit was there to be interpreters . That means they played a support role and were not the 'point of the spear'. In other words ;her unit's responsibility and training was NOT to engage the enemy. That they did on occasion ;I'm sure they were adequately trained. Convoys transporting equipment frequently came under fire ,especially with IED.. That did not make the driver of the truck's role a combat role.
Their role was not combat.This posting is called G I JANE .In the movie from which the title comes from ;the woman wants to join the Seals ; at the beginning standards are reduced to accommodate the physical differences ;and she insists that she be judged under the same standards as the male applicants.

Is that what Panetta has in mind ;that the women applicants will have to qualify for the same physical standards as the men ? I doubt it... More likely the standards will be reduced to accommodate ;compromising the effectiveness of the front line tip of the' spear infantry' .

Now I don't want to drop my point in my 1st response. Do you want women drafted and not given a choice about it like frequently happens in a draft army Or is this a move to abolish selective service ?

Yes, I keep forgetting you still conscript in the US; we don't in Canada, but always seem to have enough troops to go around, including the Peace Corp.

Strength is now admired in women, and is no longer seen as mannish as it used to be. Women's sports have come a long way and are more physical than ever.

Thanks to Billie Jean King for that one!

I'm a huge fan of strong, athletic women... except for bodybuilders. That's just wrong.

How many women have become generals?

Here you go.

Profiles of Women in the U.S. Army (http://www.army.mil/women/profiles.html)

First female four-star U.S. Army general nominated - CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-23/us/woman.general_1_fourth-star-elizabeth-hoisington-third-star?_s=PM:US)

Female Generals: The Pentagon's First Pair of Four-Star Women | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2012/08/13/female-generals-the-pentagons-first-pair-of-four-star-women/)

When you are attacked everyone with a gun should be responding, so elimination of the terms attached to and assigned to to be clarified by training and accepted as a function of the team be it medic, interpretor, security, or driver, or cook.

The enemy makes no such distinctions, neither should we.

As to whether women should be drafted? In war, all hands on deck, in whatever capacity they can serve, if a draft is truly necessary, the prom kings and queens, as well as the ones from the elites and politicians should be drafted as the poor are.

Why would we need a draft in the first place? Clarify please?

Instead of picking a country where women are barred why don't you go back to the link I gave you on page 1?

I looked at it. And they didn't show a single woman that was a grunt. They have supporting roles and no one is doubting their contributions for the country. But the grunts are the labor force of war. That is what the argument is about.

From your post (quote)

In Afghanistan, for example, 83 women served in the infantry, 58 were in field artillery, 34 were combat engineers, 20 were pilots and nine were in armour. The proportion of women in combat positions doubled from 4.6% in the 1990s to 8.3% during the Afghan mission.

Why would we need a draft in the first place? Clarify please?

I don't think we do today.. It wasn't my idea to reinstitute Selective Service.. It was Carter and the Dems. But I do foresee a future day when there would be a need for a draft .

But it would not have happened if females were subject to it . They made it a point to exclude women in the law... going so far as to let the Equal Rights Amendment expire rather than have women enter into the Selective Service system .

Now ,as I pointed out on the 1st page ;the Selective Service law stood up to constitutional challenge only because women do not serve in front line combat.
It's all well and good to have equal rights and opportunity when the service is volunteer and women have a choice about serving in infantry combat roles . It's quite another when there is a draft ;and neither men or women are permitted that choice.

Hello Don't:


There are a few nutcases of course, but the vast majority of conservatives do not believe what you are suggesting and do not promote this idea. I certainly don't.

Nothing like a little sensationalism, there is no such thing as "Republicans for rape." But like I said yesterday, what would I know about women's issues?

It might not be an official club but there is enough on your side talkig crazy stuff. Obviously THEY know nothing about women's issues.

it might not be an official club but there is enough on your side talkig crazy stuff. Obviously THEY know nothing about womens issues.

And liberals never talk crazy stuff, snicker snicker...

Ex put his out there, your turn. Then I can snicker with you.

Lets see what the women think after the first videos of dead female soldiers are shown being raped by the Muslim horde. Its not IF but WHEN its going to happen.

Doesn't this rape distraction belong on the 'war on women ' op ?

Not really... considering what passes as female in some of those countries... its going to happen... its a common occurrence in prisons in that part of the world... the Battlefield will be even worse.

Then there is what they could expect if they were ever captured alive...

They sodomized the Embassador to Libya... either before or after he was killed... and that was a guy... they treat their own women worse than livestock... think our women would be treated better than that by them?

Being in a combat role puts them at very high risk of that...

Hello tom:


doesn't this rape distraction belong on the 'war on women ' op ?It's all the same argument, isn't it? I put it here because I said right wingers have blamed women for being raped for a long time. Don't said that wasn't so. So, I posted my thing.. No, it's not exactly in response to the argument. But, I FOUND it, and I LIKE it, so I posted it.

Excon

Ex put his out there, your turn. Then I can snicker with you.

"I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and [sic] when they let him out he was like "You know what this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail I'm not staying, so that's why he left." -Whoopi Goldberg on Roman Polanski sodomizing and raping 13-year-old girl.

"I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required." -Sheryl Crow

"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize." -Congressman Hank Johnson

"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate." - Marion Barry

"Eight more days and I can start telling the truth again" -Chris Dodd

"The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs." -Jerry Brown

"The harsh fact of the matter is when you're passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." -John Dingell

"If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times... Yeah that's right, I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. Because that's exactly what they are." -Ed Shultz

"Guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal will be about socializing... uh, um... Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies." -Maxine Waters

And this is not a little bit of sensationalism? Interesting that most on this list are not politicians.

Kathleen Parker's take on the subject:
Parker: Military is putting women at unique risk - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/parker-military-is-putting-women-at-unique-risk/2013/01/25/33d9eca6-6723-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html?hpid=z6)

She's right on... making most of the points I've tried to make on this discussion.

With all that battle gear on, how will the enemy even know she is female? And she will certainly be well trained before she is let loose in the batttlefield.

With all that battle gear on, how will the enemy even know she is female? And she will certainly be well trained before she is let loose in the batttlefield.

Under close combat conditions and from capture Im sure they will figure it out.

Hello again, wingers:

Your attitude toward this MIRRORS your backwards viewpoint about women in general. It's the kind of attitude that foments a war on women...

Bottom line; your views are paternalistic, and offensive. They're sexist, old fashioned, and WRONG... The stupid reasons I hear from you is that you can't sh1t with the girls looking... She can't carry a guy. But a Pee Wee Herman type could, and a Serrina Williams type couldn't. The guys might have to RAPE a girl if she was there. She might have her period, and we can't have that.. She might get pregnant - can't have that. She might get captured and raped by them. Can't have that either. What if there's a draft? Can't draft women.

It's time you joined us the 21st Century.

excon

My understanding as explained by females who have already served is that they want the same credit and promotional opportunities as the men they served with. Sounds legit. They also point out that the chances of them being raped and assaulted by their fellow comrades is greater than being captured by the enemy, and fact back this up. They also agree that they have to meet the same high standards for combat as the men do, so seems the benefits and past circumstances have more merits than the what ifs of the opposing arguments.

I guess that's why Panetta and the Joint Chiefs have decided to give them the equality, and equal protection under the law they are suing for with a rational plan of implementation over 3years to accomplish that goal.

My understanding as explained by females who have already served is that they want the same credit and promotional opportunities as the men they served with. Sounds legit. They also point out that the chances of them being raped and assaulted by their fellow comrades is greater than being captured by the enemy, and fact back this up. They also agree that they have to meet the same high standards for combat as the men do, so seems the benefits and past circumstances have more merits than the what ifs of the opposing arguments.

I guess that's why Panetta and the Joint Chiefs have decided to give them the equality, and equal protection under the law they are suing for with a rational plan of implementation over 3years to accomplish that goal.

Careful about bringing up rape. You'll be accused of waging war on women.


They also agree that they have to meet the same high standards for combat as the men do,
And yet there are already 2 standards in the military for men and women .

Under close combat conditions and from capture Im sure they will figure it out.

It's all in the hips you know, you can pick a female

It's all in the hips you know, you can pick a female
Those hips are pretty much enveloped and covered by camo. Maybe the high cheekbones and pouty lips?

No the shape is different, the walk is different