The most striking aspect of the Pentagon’s decision to lift a 1994 ban on combat duty for women last week was the lack of any substantive opposition in Congress. Normally, any policy change that hints at evolving social values leads to some kind of political uproar; it was a deeply divided Congress, for example, that repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell.” No comparable controversy erupted last week, as such Republicans as Senator John McCain embraced the change. That’s partly because the new policy reflects the actual practice in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also gives belated acknowledgment to the over 150 women who have died in uniform since 2001. They did, in fact, perish in combat.
In retrospect, the White House, which appears to have been taken by surprise by the timing of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s decision, was unnecessarily fearful of addressing the issue. All the service chiefs came to the conclusion some time ago that, in wars with no clear battle lines, the formal exclusion of women was impossible to enforce.
Comments
As has always been the case, this means that the standards will be lowered to accomodate women in combat related roles. This cannot be good for our military. But the goal here is not to win wars, it is to make promotions more available to women, as the editorial unapologetically pointed out.
There is no plan to lower any standards nor is there reason to do so. Standards for vaious MOS's may alter, perhaps a tank driver won't have to meet an infantryman's weight standards, but any changes will simply be a review of existing standards and whether they are actualy necessary.
As a combat veteran and an old man I have mixed feelings on this myself. Could I function well with a female in my old combat unit. The answer for me is probably, No. But I am an old man and the world has changed. How young men view women today is different from my day. How young men view themselves is different. When I was sixteen every young man wanted a car, not so today. Every young man viewed himself as the sole bread winner in a family or if not sole the "big" money maker. Not so today.
Times change and if a woman can meet the standards then more power to her. It is a new generations time. It is not mine. I am not like my old Repubican Party standing at the crossroads of history and saying, "No" the world doesn't change I won't let it. The world does and I am glad it does.
On this you are wrong. The PT requirements ARE lower for women, and the standards that are set for women would cause men to disqualified. That already is the case, but if women became 11b (infantry), we would have soldiers on the field who, until now, were not qualified. How will that help us win wars?
"Richmond12" That is simply not true unless you are referring to what current requirements are for the MOS's. The most recent directive stated that women are required for Infantry and other combat arms to meet the same requirements. What is it with you guys who seem to be afraid that somehow your masculinity is somehow besmirched because a woman can do the job. I just don't get it.
Did you serve? Have you been in combat? I simply ask because if you have not then how do you know what women can do. The VC women were exceptional soldiers and certainly not weak links in the combat unit.
This comment has been removed.
I've seen women in construction for decades. Maybe one or two in that time frame were the equal of a man. In the meantime, people were paying journeyman rate for what was essentially a helper. Any project with government money attached had to have so many women. That said, there's probably many jobs in the military where a woman could free up a man.