It has come to this. Four military women, each having served in Afghanistan or Iraq, have sued the Pentagon over its combat exclusion rules. The plaintiffs come from the Rosa Parks school of activism: They only want what they deserve. Each one either faced the enemy, won the Purple Heart, or been injured by IEDs on the streets of Baghdad or Kabul. Their legal complaint takes on the confusing rules that prohibit them from “combat,” and yet, because of the nature of warfare today, allow them to fight. The fact that the military doesn’t give them credit for fighting limits their chances for promotion and the opportunity to learn new skills. The combat rules fool no one, least of all these plaintiffs. Women are at war.
But enough about them. The Pentagon has no one else to blame but itself for the lawsuit. Secretary Leon Panetta, the named defendant, will now have to answer their claims. Defendants have a tendency to miss the big picture while under legal assault; he might opt to fight this on procedural and constitutional grounds. But there is only one way for the Pentagon to actually win this war, a war of their own making against the women who constitute 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel, including 280,000 women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Defense Department can finally end the exclusion rules and make the case moot.
Comments
The purpose of the army is to win wars, not to provide "equal opportunity". Opening the combat positions to women means lowering the physical strenght standards. That is not in our nation's best interest, and will not help our army win wars.
Simple solution. Don't lower the standards.
As an old soldier and a combat veteran I have very mixed feelings on this one. Should they be allowed in combat roles. Why not? If they are physically capable and able to hold up their end gender is no reason for a ban. Yet everything I was ever taught says no way, no how. But I know that's not right. Why in the world do they want to go into combat if they don't have to? Probably for the same reason I did. Even in my own considerations I view it as a dumb argument and the fact is, it is a dumb argument. If they are capable and that is their goal then let them pursue their goal like everyone else. If they want airborne ranger and can get through the school who are we to say no.
"Why in the world do they want to go into combat if they don't have to? Probably for the same reason I did."
I suspect it sounds a lot more cool when you're 18, immortal for the foreseeable future, and have never seen anyone die, doesn't it?
Thank you for your service.
"The Pentagon should have rules that reflect the society it defends — a society that has already abandoned gender discrimination as public policy."
Baloney. The Pantagon should have rules that work for force effectiveness, and to protect the young people who choose to risk their lives for our safety. The rules for military are truely a case of life and death, and should not be set by politicians or pundits, especialy those who have never served, and thus are clueless to boot.
.
whoops, sorry 'bout that. Yes, I agree.
Women should be required to register for the draft, with the Selective Service System, just as males, 18-26 (with some exceptions), have been required to do since President Carter's Proclamation 4771, signed in 1980. Equal conscription for all. The better argument is to abolish registration entirely--given that we have "all volunteer" armed services.
So we have it: the "progressive" voice, traditionally anti-war, now lusting for women in combat. Certain women certainly would be capable of performing many of the functions performed by on-the-line male troops. Anyone who has ever been stopped by a belligerent butch State Trooper or local lesbo-cop, or whose ever contended against some strident harridan at a dinner party, knows how effective women can be in certain combat situations. Just not all of them. But let them serve. Let them fight. Let them get captured by the enemy. And, as POW's, let them be forced to listen to the feminist works of Bella Abzug or Betty Friedan, blared over loudspeakers 24 x 7 by a voice sounding like a combination of Hilary Clinton and Susan Estrich. Any woman crazy enough to ask for combat deserves what she asks for.