Pentagon to Lift Some Restrictions on Women in Combat

ABC News ^ | February 8 | Luis Martinez

[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 year’s 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.

[And2TheRepublic]

Yes,

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.

[blueunicorn6]

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?

[cuban leaf]

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.

[silverleaf]

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.

[cuban leaf]

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.

[Apogee]

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.

[cuban leaf]

DOH!

Less dangerous = MORE dangerous

[shooter223]

All-American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahPwlOOKedg

[ExTxMarine]

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!

[silverleaf]

Convoys?

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRx6ZwBmoL0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQLH-FUc1rA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqzjcPJi-oc&feature=related
MilitaryLioness has posted 22 videos= “not” combat?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5m_UtX_Lfg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hfi2R3MnWQ

[Ramius]

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.

[ExTxMarine]

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.

And just allowing gays to not disclose their sexuality will never lead to full-acceptance of homosexuality in the Armed Forces - did you ever hear that when they were arguing for DADT?

You give these social engineering groups an inch, they want to be a ruler! That is where this is going to lead. And ultimately it will result in less effective combat units. To think otherwise is simply wearing rose-colored glasses about the last forty years in America.

As a combat veterans, I can tell you what it takes to be a cohesive combat unit and any - ANY- ripple in that cohesion will cause unnecessary DEATHS! And that is all I care about when it comes to our Armed Forces!

[silverleaf]

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

[cotton]

I was in the Regular Army from 69 to 73, MOS 97B40 & 97D20 I really was a Special Agent for Military Intelligence, after being a coordinator. MI command and the school moved to FT Hachuga (I know spelling is wrong), Arizona soon after I was finished the course. Therefore, very few women(Jane) could have completed this MOS at the Bird as I was one of the first two women allowed in this MOS. We had no secondary MOS though latter in the reserves I was the NBC/CBR NCO. I do not think women should be in combat. I could never have carried a wounded man off the field. Maybe drug Him for a way. However, I was excellent in my noncombat roles.

[Boogieman]

“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.

[ExTxMarine]

So yeah, I thnk it is worth a shot, we’ve got a lot of brave marines committed to it (female and male)

We have a President and a great number of Congress-critters committed to converting the US into a socialist socirty - should we give that shot too? Just because people think it will work doesn't mean we should continue to put people in harms way - HOPING that things will CHANGE! We have been trying this beans and butter for over eight/nine years, hell we lost Vietnam BECAUSE of this political strategy - this is NOT a combat strategy - so how's this been working for us?

Russia's failure was caused by MANY facts: they were fighting two wars on two fronts (not unlike us with Iraq), they never fully tried the full country control - because they refused to put boots on the ground in the mountains. They tried to contain the "insurgents" in the mountains while they then attempted the beans and butter approach in the cities. The men in the mountains were the family members of those in the cities. Again - BAD MOVE!

You grab someone by the nuts, the heart and mind will follow - once again see Japan, Germany, etc... If you try to appease someone with beans and butter while the insurgents have a gun at their backs, they will say whatever you want to hear to get the beans and butter and then give it to the insurgents - EVERY SINGLE TIME - see Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan, the UN in every place they screwed up, etc...

War is not designed to be a love fest. It is designed to end hostilities as quickly as possible with the least amount of casualties. If you try to add the love fest stuff into the mix, it only creates suckers - because as I stated above, the enemy will take our give-outs all day!

Our current combat methods are literally SUPPLYING our enemies; do you still think this is a good idea?

The Marines give full combat training to all Marines - male or female - they simply are not given combat MOS's. I have nothing against women learning about combat, as someone else stated, I know many women who could do great in combat. I also know many men who were NOT great in combat. But, it doesn't change the underlying concern which I have.

Look at the numbers since women were allowed to serve on ships. Since this, the cost of pregnancies and sexual related costs have more than quadrupled! The number of NJP's due to altercations, lover spats, and the constant replacement of ship personnel (no ongoing cohesion) have all been listed as concerns by naval officers. But, this doesn't get reported to Congress nor the mass of people because it isn't PC! Again, all I care about is combat personnel having the best chance to return to America - ALIVE! And as quickly as possible! We can NEVER do this using our current politically-charged combat strategies! PERIOD!

[Apogee]

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.

[wally_bert]

Very impressive.

[wally_bert]

Very impressive.

[wally_bert]

Very impressive.