The men did right. Last Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, a man, joined with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, a man, to rescind the 1994 order barring women from combat. It came on the heels of a decision by the heads of the armed services, all men, that the “time had come” to have the rules reflect reality: Women have been in combat for a long time. President Obama, a man, expressed his support.
Why now? The pace of the Pentagon’s decision to lift all combat exclusion rules for women came faster than most close observers anticipated. That speed, after years of review and debate, is because of the women. And, surprisingly, the gay rights movement.
Comments
Keeping women out of combat roles because they cannot meet the physical strength requirements is NOT the same as discrimination because of skin color. How offensive. If any woman in the military can pass the male physical training standards, they should be allowed in combat roles. There are surely many who can. But to lower the standards for women, which this will do, is just plain stupid.
Comparing this to Selma is wrong, and offensive. A betteanalogy would be comparing it to affirmative action where lesser qualified minorities gain admission to law school and medical school, just because of their race.
A better analogy would be comparing it to affirmative action where QUALIFIED minorities gain admission to law school and medical school INSTEAD of LEGACY students like George W Bush..
BDS
"Richmond" keeps wanting to say they are changing the physical requirements for women in the combat arms. He can keep saying it but it isn't true. Standards have been divided in the past becasue women were excluded from combat roles and therefore did not need to meet the requirements. However, the upcoming or at least the draft proposals by the chain of command have been that women will have to meet the same physical requirements as men. There will be no seperation.
I have seen a lot of comments from folks who have obviously never been in the military or in combat regarding this subject and generally speaking they seem to have no familiarity with how the military works or what traits are really important in combat. I have often said I have mixed feelings on this subject, because I've been in combat and I'm an old man with old views, but that doesn't allow me to hold back the hands of time and change. I might have a hard time with it but I'll not deny anyone their opportunity to become whatever is that they desire.
Fears of changes in physical requirements is nothing more than the age old excuses one always finds to oppose change. In the end all the complaining changes nothing. If you are familiar with military you will know that once the orders are given the issue is no longer up for debate. This is your mission, get it accomplished that is all that matters. Case closed.
Attaturk - I have never served but some of the articles I have been reading after this decision makes it seem to be a very difficult transition.
Here is one from a femaale soldier: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/no-better-critics_698023.html?nopager=1
As I said above, but would defer to you and others who have served, the military's task is not the same as civilian. It is not the same
Attaturk:
You can look at the websites, the standards for women in the military are lower than those for men. If these proposals would RAISE the PT standards to those of men, for women wanting to serve in the infantry, than this may work. Of course, there are other problems besides the physical strength standards. But to me, that is the biggest one.
I view the military as having one mission: To win wars. There is absolutely no way that one could seriously argue that adding women to combat roles would help that. Women get pregnant, men treat women differently than they treat other men...the bottom line is that men and women are not the same. Pretending they, are for the advancement of women's career objectives in the military is nonsensical.
I am a veteran, but did not serve in a war. Women have many talents, and serve with honor in many roles. But combat should not be one of them, for the obvious reasons.
Time for women to register for the draft
1) There is no draft and 2) it is time to eliminate Selective Service for everyone.
Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service
Eliminate Selective Service, really, why? Oh, that is right, in this wonderful new world of ours, it is IMPOSSIBLE that we will ever get into a war that would require that many troops to fight for our country. Or is it that you believe everyone has some sort of right to decide whether or not they should have to defend this country? If so, please reference which part of the Constitution gives you that right?
stupid. Why does the left want to treat the military as a microcosm of society? Oh yea, they hate the military
Come on "be" I expect you and I disagree on everything except golf. But that statement is over the top. I'm not left. I'm a combat vet and I see no reason to prevent a qualified female from doing whatever it is she wants to do. The military is and has always been a reflection of society. During Nam who were the grunts. Guys like me from the inner city, southern yahoo's and anyone else who couldn't avoid the draft.
"be" Didn't see your comment below, but there will always be the exception. The "beef", but overall the military does what the military does because when the order comes down there are no other options except complete the mission, whatever that mission might be. Whether it is to integrate minorities, gays or women.
This whole thing is being over analyzed.
A blow for women's rights! BS
Somehow linked to the Gay Rights movement, BS
How about this? It has become increasingly difficult to recruit COMBAT troops. Dropping standards to accept those with criminal records, etc. Huge bonuses, educational benefits. When you need bodies, who cares if they are male or female? When the Russians fought the Germans, they had no problem using women in combat. They needed bodies.
The "draft" is a dirty word. The first president to reinstate its use is going to doom his party.
This move is pure brilliance, Empowering women by letting them have the OPPORTUNITY to get shot at.
Can women perform in combat? I am sure they can, I won't even attempt to quibble about it.
But this article? WOW! Where else but America can you be a Hero for giving someone the opportunity to get killed?
"History" back in the day when I was a young man and not a very nice one, the courts often made it a "suggestion" that one go into the military to avoid let us say less favorable accomodations. I wish they would bring it back. Do not underestimate the value that the military can bring into a young man or young womans life.
The argument cannot flow back and forth between women "can't do it" to "we shouldn't give women te opportunity to get killed". At this late stage of my life I lack the zeal to see to many things worth dying for, foreign adventure is not one of them. So let us leave the question to one simply of the ability to qualify. Everything else is an individual choice. Dying isn't political, it is purely personal.
This comment has been removed.
do you believe that women should fight in the jungles like they had in Vietnam or the cliffs of Normandy etc.....that is front lines combat and the answer is no....because of human nature, man will try to protect as an instinct first.....they are qualified to be fighter pilots etc.... front foot soldiers no.
This comment has been removed.
Yup, that technology doesn't weigh 60 or more pounds, nope. Heck, those evil 30 round mags are featherlight too, thanks to technology. Dated my rearend. Don't be talking about technology overcoming the load that an infantryman has to carry on the battlefield, you are just plain wrong.
The rest of it is the old VietNam "hearts and mind" drivel. After we pull out, the extremists will cut out a few hearts, and all the other minds will follow, just like they did in VietNam and Cambodia.
What we are seeing now is the latest version of "Peace With Honor", the media makes sure the American people think we trained up well enough to fight the good fight, did all we can, etc. Then, when it all falls apart, SEE! not our fault. Not making a partisan statement here, they did the same thing for Nixon.
nothing wrong about gay men in the service...so what is that about no problem unless they make a pass at the wrong guy and get decked.
Gay men making a pass at straight men in the military is a red herring. The real problem in the military is straight men making passes, and worse, at the women in the military. Sexual assaults by men on women in the military is major problem that keeps getting swept under the rug. Straight men should be more concerned with their fellow straight men who can't control themselves and who, as a consequence, are giving all men in the military a bad reputation.
oh puhleeeeeze. @ beaner.
Every citizen has a right to serve in the military if they qualify. Want to serve in the infantry or volunteer for the Airborne? It's your right as long as you qualify. Gender should not determine one's qualifications. Physical and mental standards should be the qualifier. We've had female fighter pilots for many years. There was negative noise when this happened. Not any more.
Do they actually have a waiting list for the infantry? I am serious. If so, that is hardcore.
MSNBC Host: U.S. Military Despised As Engine Of War By Many Progressives
What the heck is a progressive? I am soooo confused!
Are those the same guys that were despising me about 40 years ago, cause I was some kind of "Engine of War"?
They need to get a name and stick with it, I have one in mind, but the BG wouldn't like it.
"be" just back from golfing, ugh the greens at this course I had never played before were criminal. To charge for that course was criminal. Oh well, buyer beward as you "free markters" like to say, but I was robbed.
"Richmond12" I don't think intentionally but you keep conflating the PT requirements for completion of basic with PT requirements for combat arms. They are not the same now nor were they the same back in the day. A certain degree of physical profeciency was required for Basic, a higher level for Advanced Infantry, higher for airborne, ranger and higher for Special Forces. That has been and remains the same. Yes, the requirement for women out of basic is different for women than men, but that has been because movement to combat arms was not possible. I would imagine that the difference will remain but women will have to meet the higher requirement of combat arms.