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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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 .