Leon Panetta lifts ban on women in combat.

[Chucktshoes]

http://news.yahoo.com/panetta-opens-combat-roles-women-201403079--politics.html

Women are now able to serve in all combat jobs.

[E4 No More]

Just because they can doesn't mean that they will. Have them sign up for the selective services, and if they volunteer without a contract let's see how many get put in combat units like the men do.

[Spots]

Its a bad idea. Sexual assult claims, rape claims, and in country pregnacys will go through the roof if they put women in grunt units. Not to mention now needing seperate facilites in a combat zone. And not to be sexist, but it takes a lot of upper body strength to pull a man out of a bad situation in a full combat load. Woman are naturally weaker in the upper body. They need to be able to pass the same PT test as the men before serving in a line unit. I don't know about know, but when I got out of the Marines last year it was still curved heavily for women on the PFT, and CFT.

[gnmwilliams]

Its a bad idea. Sexual assult claims, rape claims, and in country pregnacys will go through the roof if they put women in grunt units. Not to mention now needing seperate facilites in a combat zone. And not to be sexist, but it takes a lot of upper body strength to pull a man out of a bad situation in a full combat load. Woman are naturally weaker in the upper body. They need to be able to pass the same PT test as the men before serving in a line unit. I don't know about know, but when I got out of the Marines last year it was still curved heavily for women on the PFT, and CFT.

They could go all Starship Troopers and have em all together! They didn't have any problems in the movie so it should work in real life right?

[TripleDigitRide]

I've never been in the military, but this sounds like a very bad idea.

[Raoul]

I don't like it. Seems like a sure way to cause problems.

[DaveTN]

Its a bad idea. Sexual assult claims, rape claims, and in country pregnacys will go through the roof if they put women in grunt units.

The said the same thing would happen when women were put on combat ships and submarines. I didn’t have the privilege of the experience but it doesn’t seem to be a big problem.

I was on the PD when they changed the physical agility test because not enough women could pass it. There was a lot of drama over that, but it work out; there are a lot of women cops now.

[Sam1]

If they do not lower the standards then I am all for it. Have seen a few women that could outdo men at anything physical, and if they can pass the same standards then i'd say go for it. The problem is that when they start lowering the standards to "meet the quota" that will be imposed, that the male counterparts are going to have to pick up the weight.

 

Health issues are another one, as a tanker we went a few times 4-5 weeks without no water to shower with. Hygienically, a woman could not be stuffed inside the turret of a tank for 4 weeks with no water to wash. And then you bring in the issue of sexual accusations, so now every tanker in the military is going to have to have another 40 hours of training per year on sensitivity, or possibly have to have 2 people awake when in the presence of a female for guard (when now it's 1 per tank).

 

It's not going to be a good situation because of how the standards will be lowered.

[Sam1]

The said the same thing would happen when women were put on combat ships and submarines. I didn’t have the privilege of the experience but it doesn’t seem to be a big problem.

I was on the PD when they changed the physical agility test because not enough women could pass it. There was a lot of drama over that, but it work out; there are a lot of women cops now.

 

Submarine and other duties where there are a group of people is a completely different story with the sexual accusations. When you've got 3 or 4 people in a group segregated for weeks at a time, that's when it turns into an issue.

[Spots]

The said the same thing would happen when women were put on combat ships and submarines. I didn’t have the privilege of the experience but it doesn’t seem to be a big problem.

I was on the PD when they changed the physical agility test because not enough women could pass it. There was a lot of drama over that, but it work out; there are a lot of women cops now.

I did. My last MEU we had 4 oops pregnancies, 4 sexual assualt accusations, and one girl cried rape after being caught. Turns out she lied, they had been having consensual sex, and when they got caught she saw it as a way out without getting in trouble. And just because a lot of women are cops doesn't mean it worked out if they lowered the standards. I still say its a bad idea for the reasons listed above.

[TSprint1]

There's no way they're gonna have the same physical standards for men and women.  Tried that with the advent of VOLAR and it fell flat on it's face.  Too many politics involved.  Take a look at the current army pt test requirements - http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards    If they do standardize them for both sexes, just as soon as "too many females" start failing pushups (as an example) because of the "lack of upper body strength" they'll have two standards again.  I am not against having two different qualifications.....just don't lie and say you're not going to do that.  There are very few MOS's that have a different pt test score requirement, SF and Ranger (ASI) immediately come to mind, but we'll see.  (Lowering the male requirements may also be an option that they will look at).  Looks like it's straddle the fence time again.

[Spook]

What is to be gained by this? Other than to pacify a few females who think they might qualify I don't see the advantage to our war fighting capability. The risks seem to heavily outweigh the potential gains.

[Guest 270win]

Sign them up for selective service so that they are all eligible for the draft should it be needed.  Make them meet the same standards as men and not some dumbed down PT that help pass lady police and fire fighters.  Stick them on the front lines out in the middle of nowhere if they want it this bad.

[TMF]

Awesome. Now we just need to lower all the standard so they can serve in those jobs, so that way it'll be "fair". To hell with readiness and standards.

[TMF]

What is to be gained by this? Other than to pacify a few females who think they might qualify I don't see the advantage to our war fighting capability. The risks seem to heavily outweigh the potential gains.

Don't kid yourself. More than a few females will meet the requirements for those combat arms jobs because they'll just lower the standards. I'm so effing glad I'm not in the military anymore. Obama is making it clear it is just a social experiment, not an organization that should be focused on closing with and destroying the enemy. Edited January 24, 2013 by TMF

[mikegideon]

Allen West comments from this morning...

 

On SecDef Leon Panetta's statement re: opening up direct combat billets to women. First of all, women in combat zones are serving in combat and the new 21st century battlefield means anyone outside of their FOB( Forward Operating Base) will potentially be engaged in a combat situation.

However, to make the insidious policy decision that we shall now open up combat billets to women is something completely different. GI Jane was a movie and should not be the basis for a policy shift. I know Martha McSally, have known women who are Apache and Cobra helicopter pilots, and served with women who were MPs, but being on the ground and having to go mano y mano in close combat is a completely different environment.

I completely disagree with this decision and can just imagine all the third and fourth order effects and considerations for implementation, such as standards for training. Unless the Obama administration has not noticed we are fighting against a brutal enemy and now is not the time to play a social experiment with our ground combat forces. President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, should be focused on sequestration and the failure of his policies in the Middle East. This is the misconceived liberal progressive vision of fairness and equality which could potentially lead to the demise of our military.

[TMF]

Te movies don't lie. I'm sure women are just as capable to strap a 100 lb ruck with a mortar baseplate on their back and walk for days through the woods. And if they're not, we'll just lower the standards! Surely there is no reason that standards exist in the first place.

[1gewehr]

The whole argument about whether women are CAPABLE of serving in combat is a red herring.  the argument should be about whether women SHOULD be serving in combat roles.

 

The question nobody seems to be asking is what detrimental effects could occur from a strategic perspective.  Women can do one thing that men have never been able to do; produce babies.  After WWI, France, Britain, and Germany had lost between 10-25% of their men between 18 and 45 years of age.  Among men age 18-30, the dead accounted for as much as 50% of the population.  Yet, just one generation later, all of those countries were capable of fielding armies just as large as they did in WWI.  The reason is because they did not have a significant loss of young women in WWI. 

 

We have not had to fight a war where the dead accounted for a significant percentage of the population since the Civil War.  Imagine if we fight one in the near future where we have 10% of our young adults as casualties.  If women are in that mix, then we have just lost 10% of our ability to have a new generation.  We will have lost at least 10% of our future. 

 

As a practical question, if we send our young women off to fight in that same horrendous war, who will run the country while they are gone?  In WWI and WWII, women stepped up and worked in factories and farms so the men could fight.  But, if both men and women are off fighting, who will keep the power plants running, the farms producing, and all of the other jobs needed to win a war?

 

A usual, the liberals are more concerned with appearances than with reality.

[TMF]

It's not a red herring. There is FAR more to serving in a combat arms MOS than pulling a trigger. In fact, being able to kill or be killed has nothing to do with it. It is the conditions one is expected to endure and the physical abilities required to endure it. Sorry, females are built different. Even the most physically capable women could not have done the things I've done. The standards would have to be lowered to include women, and they will. When that happens we are placing a higher value on social change than the lives of our troops and the missions they are expected to accomplish. Edited January 24, 2013 by TMF

[Guest 270win]

War and fighting isn't fair.  There is a winner and there is a loser.  Kill or be killed.

 

When we let 'fairness' get into combat troop rediness, we have failed and must be ready to lose.

[TMF]

This is being sold as an equality issue. It is not. Men and women are born physically different. It is for those reasons the infantry was designed the way it was thousands of years ago. Had nothing to do with equality. For those who don't think a difference exists please show me where all the battered men's shelters are.

[Sam1]

This is being sold as an equality issue. It is not. Men and women are born physically different. It is for those reasons the infantry was designed the way it was thousands of years ago. Had nothing to do with equality. For those who don't think a difference exists please show me where all the battered men's shelters are.

 

There are thousands around the country, also known as prisons and jails ;)

[TMF]

[quote name="Sam1" post="895596" timestamp="1359127049"]There are thousands around the country, also known as prisons and jails ;)[/quote] Ha, yes but they are being battered by other men.

[Moped]

I have no problem with this as long as a woman can pass the same PT test.  I think they should also include a fireman's carry in the PT test as well.   I do know women that could pass the PT test with flying colors and perform a proper fireman's carry.  If they can do that, I don't see how you can keep them out.

[TMF]

I have no problem with this as long as a woman can pass the same PT test. I think they should also include a fireman's carry in the PT test as well. I do know women that could pass the PT test with flying colors and perform a proper fireman's carry. If they can do that, I don't see how you can keep them out.

There is a lot more to it than just that though. I could make a list a mile long, but here are just a couple.... I recall doing a two week field problem when I was a private during which we had to do a security mission for the REMFs at brigade, which included females. The day we conducted this mission the females were trucked out of the field for " personal hygiene maintenance". Sorry, that don't happen for grunts. I would love nothing more than to be able to go back to the rear and wash my nuts after being in the field for a week, but I can't. To what do we owe this policy? Some BS crap about how chicks must wash out their business to stay healthy. That's all well and good, but those nice conditions don't exist in the field.

Then let us acknowledge that a female's bone structure isn't designed to have an 80-100lb ruck strapped to it. I haven't met a female yet that could pick up my rucksack, let alone put it on and hump it all day. So what will this mean down the road? It means that females won't be able to pull their weight, and the male soldiers will have to do it for them. I couldn't even fathom what would happen if a male Private told his platoon Sgt that he needed help carrying his crap. If he wasn't beaten stupid for being worthless, he would at least find himself off the line permanently.

I'm sorry, there are two different militaries that exist: the Infantry and everything else. Anyone who has seen how the regular Army functions with females versus how things function in the Infantry knows what I'm talking about. The people making these policies have no idea how much they are about to weaken our fighting force with this liberal garbage. Edited January 25, 2013 by TMF