women-in-combat-williams-620x414

Washingtonpost.com:

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said Thursday that he is opening all jobs in combat units to women, a landmark decision that would for the first time allow female service members to join the country’s most elite military forces.

Women will now be eligible to join the Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces and other Special Operations Units. It also opens the Marine Corps infantry, a battle-hardened force that many service officials had openly advocated keeping closed to female service members.

“There will be no exceptions,” Carter said. “This means that, as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.”

Carter’s announcement caps three years of experimentation at the Pentagon and breakthroughs for women in the armed services. Earlier this year, two female soldiers became the first women to ever graduate from the Army’s grueling Ranger School. But the Pentagon’s project also set off a bitter debate about how women should be integrated.

Carter said that top leaders in the Army, Navy, Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command all recommended that all jobs be opened to women. The Marine Corps recommended that certain jobs such as machine gunner be kept closed, but the secretary said that the military is a joint force, and his decision will apply to everyone. The top Marine officer who made that recommendation, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September, and did not appear alongside Carter on Thursday.

The services will have 30 days to provide plans to Carter on how they will implement the policy change, he said. By law, the military also must notify Congress formally and wait that long before making any changes.

The roots of the secretary’s decision date back to January 2013, when then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced he was rescinding a longtime ban on women serving directly in ground combat units. Panetta gave the services until this fall to research the issue.

Interesting.  Where was the huge fight over opening up all jobs to women?  Did it enter with a whimper or did I miss something?  First off, I don’t understand it.  I don’t know why women want these jobs.  But, I am not a young woman.  Back in the day, women were glad they weren’t drafted so they didn’t get their faces blown off or come home in a body bag.

Ah, the draft.  Good thing that’s gone.  Or is it?  The draft can be reinstated any time Congress has to stones to bring it back if we are at war.  Young men still have to register for the draft within 30 days of their `18th birthday.  Will the same now apply to young women?  How is THAT going to go over?  It would go over like a lead balloon if I were a young woman.

On the other hand, what’s fair is fair.  If young men have to do it, then women should have to do it also.  I see a huge, glaring lawsuit if women aren’t charged with the same responsibility as men.  These are strange times.  This new law is also a good reminder to us all that we should beware of unintended consequences and we should be careful what we wish for.

Women could easily end up still having to have the babies and also end up having to go to war.

13 Thoughts to “All combat jobs opened to women: GI Jane approved for real”

  1. Kelly_3406

    In almost every aspect of American society, the ideal of inclusion has taken precedence over accomplishment. Whether the issue is an effective combat force or the vetting of refugees, inclusion has taken precedence over other considerations. At that point, it becomes almost pointless to debate such issues.

    1. I think there are women who definitely can do the same job a man can, with training and dedication. However, I think there are very few women who will have the same physical capabilities as men have. That’s just biology at work. I don’t think exceptions should be made or the bar lowered for the sake of inclusion.

      Women who pass the physical and mental requirements of whatever job is out there, absolutely shouldn’t be barred from serving in that capacity simply because of gender rules.

  2. Kelly_3406

    I agree with everything you said.

  3. When I was a young kid, I used to think about stuff a lot. One of those things I thought about was how happy I was to be a girl so I didn’t have to go to war. I always saw that as a trade off for having to have babies.

    I am talking like 5, 6 year old thoughts. I guess I was not a modern woman in those days.

  4. Cargosquid

    This Marine officer says it better than anything I can say.

    https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/why-women-do-not-belong-us-infantry

    The ability to pass the initial requirements has nothing to do with putting women into combat positions like infantry or tanks.

    1. I hope you can say it better than she can. I have never been so bored in my life. I quit reading. Is there a synopsis somewhere?

  5. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    Nope, other than she reports on what happens when you put the female body under the prolonged stress of the infantry environment. It fails. It breaks down. The bone and muscle structure is not strong enough to handle the repeated stress of prolonged field patrol, combat, and heavy loads.

    Other reports by the Marines show that mixed units cannot perform to standards as well as all male units. Much to the displeasure of the Sec. of Defense.

    Because of this announcement, you know that initial standards will drop. They have to.

    1. Standards shouldn’t be altered. I think that she takes a lot on herself to say all bone and muscle structure breaks down. I am sure there are women where it doesn’t. A few. Let’s face it, most women just can’t meet the standards.

      I am sure there are studies that disagree….but who knows. women haven’t been allowed so it is all conjecture.

      I repeat…I don’t know why they want to.

  6. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    That officer was a marathoner. She was a Marine officer that spent weeks in the field and found that her body broke down. There are reports of this being a common occurrence due to a female’s lack of bone density..

    1. Well, she speaks for herself and shouldn’t be making sweeping generalizations. Most women won’t qualify. Those who do shouldn’t be held back over gender.

      I think the more important issue is, will women be expected to register for the draft? If we are at war, will they be called up also? Those are questions that we might really face.

  7. Censored bybvbl

    She offers up the same sad arguments that were used against gays in the military and women in police, fire, construction, and other related physically demanding fields. Let those who can compete compete. If she ran marathons, she performed a task that 90% of the men in the US couldn’t do.

  8. Cargosquid

    @Censored bybvbl
    Sad arguments?

    Physical limitations due to biology is a sad argument? You didn’t read it, did you?
    Yes…she ran marathons. Running a marathon is different than trudging up and down Afghanistan’s mountains day in, day out, wearing and carrying 100+ lbs of gear.

    Instead of jumping to a knee jerk comparison by throwing out straw arguments about the previous controversies about gays, or the fact that fire depts, police depts, etc do not do the same missions as the infantry, try opening your mind to facts.

    Compete if they can compete? This is not a contest. This is not about who can pass the initial entry requirements. This is about cohesive military effectiveness.

    Here you go. From an expert: https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/blog/2012/07/05/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

    Excerpt:
    The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

    By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

    As she states…what is pushing this radical and unnecessary change? One does not have a “right” to a career path in the military. This does not improve combat readiness.

  9. Cargosquid

    I do need to correct something. Not a marathoner. Further research showed I was confusing her with someone else.

Comments are closed.