Skip to comments.Pentagon to Lift Some Restrictions on Women in Combat
Posted on 02/09/2012 6:37:37 AM PST by PghBaldy
Defense officials say as many as 14,000 positions could be opened up, though the restrictions on women serving in infantry combat units will remain in place.
The rule change reflects the ongoing reality that in a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, women were already dying in combat with the blurring of the traditional definition of front lines. Nearly 300,000 women have served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 144 of them have died in those conflicts.
The rule change is included in a report required by Congress as part of last years Defense Authorization Bill that has been overdue for months. The new rules likely will not go into effect until the summer if Congress raises no objections to the change.
Women will still be barred from serving in infantry combat units, defense officials say, but the changes will formally open up new positions at the combat battalion level that, until now, have been off limits.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I heard this on NPR this morning. Some military woman also came on and said it is “un american” to not allow women in all roles. So I start thinking about the revolutionary wars, the civil war, wwI and II and the Vietnam war. I’m thinking we didn’t allow women on Omaha Beach, in the belly of a B-17 or the trenches in wwI or any other war.
It sounds like it is VERY American to restrict how women can serve. Or has America changed? Do we no longer value our women as we once did?
We have something like 6 females from the NG armory in Jackson Michigan deploying to Afghanistan this week. They’ll be going out on patrols to deal with women they encounter since men talking to them stirs up the ants.
This pretty much says it all. It's not about defeating the enemy at all.
For women officers, it may be a big deal. Judging by the number of enlisted women who use lack of childcare to avoid deploying, or who choose to get pregnant to cut short deployment, I detect a lack of enthusiasm for being deployed in combat.
Within our lifetimes, the shower rooms on military bases is going to be like the shower room scene in the first Stormship Troopers movie.
And the, “Social Experiment,” goes on. We don’t go to war to win any more so we might as well experiment with the military.
And the, “Social Experiment,” goes on. We don’t go to war to win any more so we might as well contimue to experiment with the military.
It means we fight wars with a lot more technology and a lot fewer grunts in the future military that need sheer body strength to carry 100 pounds of gear and a comrade off the battlefield
What is a “battlefield” in modern war, anyway? It is not WW1/2 battlelines, Omaha beach, trenches and foxholes. More like villages, house-to-house urban pacification, protection and “winning the trust” of civilians, remote operating bases in Injun country, temp airfields, field hospitals to stablize and evacuate the wounded, reinforced supply depots, and constant sweeping of LOCs
Any woman who has the temperament and tech capability to kill an enemy or to risk her own life to support her fellow soldiers in their efforts to kill the enemy has a role, and doesn’t need to be “valued” by anyone but herself and her commander and her comrades
But not considered “combat” ... as if
I’ve spent the last 10 years of my Army career in the Infantry. Before that, I was a Cavalry Scout.
99 percent of women do not belong in the Infantry. A lot of men don’t belong either. The men who can’t hack it, we transfer them to different units or force them to change their MOS.
In this PC world, a women who can’t hack it in the Infantry will not be forced out.
Don’t get it twisted either; There are women who can outperform some men. But to open up the Infantry/Combat Arms to all women regardless of their abilities will be a disaster.
I’ve seen with my own eyes what happens when females mix with high testosterone driven units. I am not saying it’s the women’s fault either.
People like to compare other countries who have women among the ranks in combat arms. But the response to that is simple: None of those countries are tested in combat the way we are. There is a reason the USA is the greatest combat force in the world and it’s not from being politically correct.
The way I see it is that if they’re going on patrol in Afghanistan, its combat even if its unplanned combat.
I do see the value in sending females to deal with the Afghan women.
well, I’ve seen this whole “Operation Lioness” video and a lot of it is sappy and overdone (like about the “PTSD”, as if women are uniquely damaged by war)
It does make the point of “what is a battlefield” in modern warfare? Frankly we are not going to ever prevail in a counterinsurgency without the trust and help of the female population, and in muslim societies there are unique challenges that men cannot meet
If “officially” opening up more MOS to women gives them better training for this, more power
How many female soldiers have already been killed by incoming or by IEDs as they rode the convoy?
Restricting women from MOS 11B or 11H is a moot point if the object is to keep them out of direct combat.
They have shown incredible courage in the combat theater, that’s not the issue. Does a society expose its womenfolk to the dangers of war, that’s the question.
How ironic that in a society like Afghanistan where Islam dictates that women be treated worse than animals, that American women risk death to interact with their Afghan counterparts.
“For more than two decades, America has fought Islam in order to protect Muslims”.
...ducking under the desk...
and America will NEVER go all “Chechnya” on villages to destroy the will of the people to resist by destroying the people
So there is a a factoid for you to ignore
“Taking over a country” like Iraq or Afghanistan means winning the will of the women to cooperate with us against the endless vendettas and murderous insanity of a own male-dominated ideology. We can’t do that with men, bombs and bullets.
If we ever reach this turning point in a muslim country, we “win”.
And to say that all-women units that patrol villages to speak with Afghan women is comparable to an actual Infantry unit is a distorted and misleading argument.
Just because we have women in convoys or on foot speaking to villagers does not translate to infantry.
Convoys are not part of the Light Infantry.
Make ‘em sign up for the draft, too.
The Democrats must be scared. Every time they start having trouble, they trot out more homosexual rights, messing with the military and gun control.
Hey, Barry, how’s that economy doing?
I subscribe to the mindset that men and women are not just physically different. They are physiologically different. Not only is a woman’s body designed to bear children, but the way her brain is wired is designed to be “maternal”. Likewise, not only is a man’s body designed to father children, but his brain is wired to be provider and protector of what is his. It is why very young children play the “damsel in distress” game where the poor helpless girls are protected by the strong and armed boys.
A man has the mindset to point a gun at the head of an enemy that is not actually doing anything violent at the moment and blow his brains out. A mother will come after you if you are attacking her kids. If you are not, not so much.
I over simplify, but you get my drift. Soldiers need to be able to START localized hostilities. Females are not designed for that.
All that said, with remote operations like piloting UAV’s chicks could maybe be even better than men. But it misses the point of this article, which is women taking on ALL traditionally male roles - even Special Ops. It may work great in movies featuring Angelina Jolie. In real life it is a farce.
I think you are mired in stereotype and if you truly examine the world history of women in warfare, and women who led their nations during war, you will discover the necessary savagery to kill in support of a higher cause transcends sex.
Today as I type probably half or more of our nuclear missiles are at the fingertips of female officers who could be ordered to launch them in the next 10 minutes. Do you think they will hesitate?
In fact, we may hope the women do NOT ever rule the world.
I get that. I’m talking about pulling the trigger on a gun pointed at another man’s head, or thrusting a knife into the gut of another human being and then twisting it.
Pushing a button and not seeing the carnage you are creating is a different thing. That is why I brought up the UAV thing.
I also believe that if a woman’s children are in imminent danger, there is little on this planet that is less dangerous than that women. But we don’t want to put her children on the battlefield as motivation.
Hmmm, so since they are already dying because we have allowed women in harm’s way, we should accept it and put them in combat positions so more will.
(I know that there is some use in using women to interview the Afghan native women, but I wonder how far we need to go to accommodate the locals in that regard, at times).
The reasoning reminds me somehow of the fact that I always thought the repeal of DADT would logically mean to go back to no homosexuality. Repeal just seems the wrong word.
Less dangerous = MORE dangerous
All-American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahPwlOOKedg
I was not suggesting that we destroy the people - I said the will of the people to fight - ala WWI and WWII. Nothing to ignore in your statement. Taking over any country means invading and controlling every square inch of the country - see Japan and France as GREAT examples - not winning the hearts of the women.
We will NEVER reach that point in a muslim country, because these women have been brainwashed far longer and deeper than any couple of month or year long “peace chats” with female soldiers will help.
Beans and butter takes MUCH longer with much LESS results - which means having Americans in harms way for more time. Basic math says that means MORE DEAD AMERICANS. This is a STUPID combat method!
If we are going to win their hearts, then do that with humanitarians - NOT COMBAT SOLDIERS! You are trying to mix two of the most DIVERSE options in a happy middle-medium arena while tying the hands of combat soldiers - which leads to MORE DEAD AMERICANS.
Do you see where and why this does not, will not and has never worked? It goes like one of the fun Marine Corps sayings, “I’m a Marine, I’m here to help you, now shut-up or I will burn your hut down!” You can’t have it both ways.
Take control of the country and then met-out help and influence to show the women that things can be different. Allow them to control their own futures AFTER we disarm them - not while we are also fighting them!
Engaging in beans and butter diplomacy while we are shooting at them and they are shooting at us - WILL NEVER WORK!
Far beyond that
Just go watch some raw videos of the female Engagement Teams and Operation Lioness teams in action
Keep in mind since they are women troops, this is “not combat” role even though they work right beside the combat troops
btw: These women are risking their lives yet look at the disgraceful comments posted about them
MilitaryLioness has posted 22 videos= “not” combat?
I think the issues are different than what usually comes up. I’m sure there are women that could excel at any of the combat roles. But I don’t think that’s the main point. The real point for me is about whether -our nation- is really ready to have women fully engaged in combat and all that this means.
I think we as a nation are just not culturally ready for women in combat roles— in particular with regard to the unique risks for women when they are taken as POW’s. I would present the case of Private Jessica Lynch in Iraq as a powerful bit of evidence. America— our news media, politicians, talking heads, and the public— were clearly not emotionally prepared for the sensational nature of her and her companions’ capture by Iraqi forces. Apart from anything about her service or ability to perform in her job, the one thing that was glaringly obvious was that America wasn’t ready to cope with what happens (or may happen) to a pretty, photogenic girl in the hands of a cruel enemy mob. We (the royal “we”) freaked out. The focus on whether or not she was facing sexual abuse and rape was bordering almost on the pornographic and prurient— to the exclusion of almost everything else.
Q.E.D. — We’re not ready for it.
well, the marines have been using women in this “combat support” role since at least 2009 and are expanding the FETs
It looks like this change opening up MOS is part of the recognition the female teams are effective, but need better training offered to the combat MOS so the commanders are not creating de facto female combat troops out of support officers, female mechanics etc, after they are sent to the field
Ask a combat team trying to pacify a village if they dont want any ‘humanitarian” FET’s long to search the females and children, interrogate them, and help control them and win their cooperation while their men are being searched and questioned
and by the way, at one time the IRA terros also seemed intractable until their savagery got the women of Northern Ireland pissed and they began a mass movement to put an sock in it
So yeah, I thnk it is worth a shot, we’ve got a lot of brave marines committed to it (female and male)
the Russians amply demonstrated that scorched earth invading and controlling doesn’t work
“Make em sign up for the draft, too.”
Indeed. Why should they have the right to vote and not carry the same burdens of citizenship that men do? Women got their equal rights, but I say it’s about time we give them the equal responsibilities and see how they like that end of the bargain.
Thanks to observations garnered in my work, I have come to the conclusion that the last decade has seen a subtle, but definite, militarization of our culture.
According to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-veterans-numbers/story?id=14928136, there have been “2,333,972 American military personnel... deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan or both, as of Aug. 30,2011.” This is a small percentage of our population as a whole, but a possibly significant number of men aged 18-40.
For one example: I wonder if the rise in popularity of the UFC is one of the small indicators - go to a bar on fight night, look around, see what percentage of men are vets who identify as such through either clothing, hairstyle, or other indicators (or how many are posers, which also points to something).
Then ask whether society is re-acculturating and healing our returned vets, or being transformed itself by some of their mores (I submit that a little of both would be good).
Call me old fashioned, but I am not sure that I wish to see the same sort of hardening, which is already evident in a large set of our younger female population, extended across the board.
I am not saying in any way that women do not have the ability or strength of will to be good warriors, but I would like them (as a class) to focus their incredible strengths on nurturing and preserving our culture - which is itself a task that no army can accomplish.
Indeed, men left to their own devices would probably fail utterly. It concerns me that women (as a class, a few I know may be ‘gifted’ otherwise) might leave off the sort of war they excel in to try to be like us barbarians in the name of some ill-defined equality. The fact that our culture cannot see this as a lowering of the estate of women, and society in general, to that of mere men, is an evidence itself of how far we have fallen.