Panetta To Allow Women in Combat

[Zadius]

How does this affect certain special operations forces such as the Navy SEALs who have there own specific prohibition against women joining?

[shadowdevil502]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... y/1860269/

"The services will have until January 2016 to implement the changes. Military services may seek special exceptions to the new policy if they believe any positions must remain closed to women."

My guess is that rather than continuing the gender ban, special groups like the SEALs can just insist that anyone joining must fulfill the same physical standards, regardless of gender (unlike the larger military), which would be fair enough.

[DarkArk]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 57_ZS.html

Congress' determination that any future draft would be characterized by a need for combat troops was sufficiently supported by testimony adduced at the hearings so that the courts are not free to make their own judgment on the question. And since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress' decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause.

Another interesting quandary that has resulted from this decision is whether women will be required to register for Selective Service. Previous decisions, as linked above, said that the exclusion from combat roles was the reason that women were not so required. However that has now changed, and the legal basis for such segregation has now been thrown out the door.

[PeZook]

How does this affect certain special operations forces such as the Navy SEALs who have there own specific prohibition against women joining?

Well, from Polish practice: GROM does not prohibit female operators, it's just that their standards are hard to match even for exceptionally well conditioned men, so only a tiny handful of women can pass the physical selection. It used to be that there was a practical ban, because women were not allowed to serve in the wider military and it's a requirement you have had military service on your record before you are allowed to apply.

But there have been photographs surfacing of a couple of clearly female operators, and hearsay and scuttlebut say one of the best snipers in the unit is a woman.

Plus, SF will often take candidates who nearly flunk the physical selection over those who ace it, if the weaker candidate has specific skills they are looking for, such as languages or medical training.

[Grumman]

Another interesting quandary that has resulted from this decision is whether women will be required to register for Selective Service. Previous decisions, as linked above, said that the exclusion from combat roles was the reason that women were not so required. However that has now changed, and the legal basis for such segregation has now been thrown out the door.

My preference would be to abolish it for men as well.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Another interesting quandary that has resulted from this decision is whether women will be required to register for Selective Service. Previous decisions, as linked above, said that the exclusion from combat roles was the reason that women were not so required. However that has now changed, and the legal basis for such segregation has now been thrown out the door.

My preference would be to abolish it for men as well.

Eh. I dont like conscription, but it is a good thing to have as an option in the event of say... a conventional war between major powers, or some sort of foreign invasion. It got... over-used (Vietnam was not something the draft should have been used for), but a WW2 like conflict? In the event that such a thing breaks out, and nukes dont get involved, the selective service should be an option.

[Scrib]

Another interesting quandary that has resulted from this decision is whether women will be required to register for Selective Service. Previous decisions, as linked above, said that the exclusion from combat roles was the reason that women were not so required. However that has now changed, and the legal basis for such segregation has now been thrown out the door.

My preference would be to abolish it for men as well.

Eh. I dont like conscription, but it is a good thing to have as an option in the event of say... a conventional war between major powers, or some sort of foreign invasion. It got... over-used (Vietnam was not something the draft should have been used for), but a WW2 like conflict? In the event that such a thing breaks out, and nukes dont get involved, the selective service should be an option.

I'm willing to take the chance that there won't be a WW2-like conflict any time soon.

[Haruko]

A flurry of articles on this topic have been published in the last 48 hours by the San Bernardino County Sun (one of the papers local to my area), the most recent and informative of which is this:

1st woman to lead in combat 'thrilled' with change

By Michael Biesecker
The Associated Press
Posted: 01/25/2013 05:37:09 AM PST


In this Sept. 18, 2012 file photo, female soldiers from 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division train on a firing range while testing new body armor in Fort Campbell, Ky., in preparation for their deployment to Afghanistan. The Pentagon is lifting its ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after generations of limits on their service, defense officials said Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey, File) (Mark Humphrey)


U.S. Army Capt. Linda L. Bray in her home on Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, in Clemmons, N.C. During the invasion of Panama in 1989, Bray became the first woman to lead US troops in battle. Commander of the 988th Military Police, she engaged in a firefight with elite Panamanian Special Forces unit inside a military barracks and dog kennel. Framed on the wall are awards and unit patches she collected while serving. (AP Photo/Lynn Hey) (Lynn Hey)

RALEIGH, N.C. - Former U.S. Army Capt. Linda L. Bray says her male superiors were incredulous upon hearing she had ably led a platoon of military police officers through a firefight during the 1989 invasion of Panama.

Instead of being lauded for her actions, the first woman in U.S. history to lead male troops in combat said higher-ranking officers accused her of embellishing accounts of what happened when her platoon bested an elite unit of the Panamanian Defense Force. After her story became public, Congress fiercely debated whether she and other women had any business being on the battlefield.

The Pentagon's longstanding prohibition against women serving in ground combat ended Thursday, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that most combat roles jobs will now be open to female soldiers and Marines. Panetta said women are integral to the military's success and will be required to meet the same physical standards as their male colleagues.

"I'm so thrilled, excited. I think it's absolutely wonderful that our nation's military is taking steps to help women break the glass ceiling," said Bray, 53, of Clemmons, N.C. "It's nothing new now in the military for a woman to be right beside a man in operations."

The end of the ban on women in combat comes more than 23 years after Bray made national news and stoked intense controversy after her actions in Panama were praised as heroic by Marlin Fitzwater, the spokesman for then-President George H.W. Bush.

Bray and 45 soldiers under her command in the 988 th Military Police Company, nearly all of them men, encountered a unit of Panamanian special operations soldiers holed up inside a military barracks and dog kennel.

Her troops killed three of the enemy and took one prisoner before the rest were forced to flee, leaving behind a cache of grenades, assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition, according to Associated Press news reports published at the time. The Americans suffered no casualties.
Citing Bray's performance under fire as an example, Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., introduced a bill to repeal the law that barred female U.S. military personnel from serving in combat roles.

But the response from the Pentagon brass was less enthusiastic.

"The responses of my superior officers were very degrading, like, 'What were you doing there?'" Bray said. "A lot of people couldn't believe what I had done, or did not want to believe it. Some of them were making excuses, saying that maybe this really didn't happen the way it came out."

Schroder's bill died after top generals lobbied against the measure, saying female soldiers just weren't up to the physical rigors of combat.

"The routine carrying of a 120-pound rucksack day in and day out on the nexus of battle between infantrymen is that which is to be avoided and that's what the current Army policy does," Gen. M.R. Thurman, then the head of the U.S. Southern Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
For Bray, the blowback got personal.

The Army refused to grant her and other female soldiers who fought on the ground in Panama the Combat Infantryman Badge. She was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for Valor, an award for meritorious achievement in a non-combat role.

Bray was also the subject of an Army investigation over allegations by Panamanian officials that she and her soldiers had destroyed government and personal property during the invasion that toppled Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

Though eventually cleared of any wrongdoing, the experience soured Bray on the Army. In 1991, she resigned her commission after eight years of active duty and took a medical discharge related to a training injury.

Today's military is much different from the one Bray knew, with women already serving as fighter pilots, aboard submarines and as field supervisors in war zones. But some can't help but feel that few know of their contributions, said Alma Felix, 27, a former Army specialist.

"We are the support. Those are the positions we fill and that's a big deal - we often run the show - but people don't see that," Felix said. "Maybe it will put more females forward and give people a sense there are women out there fighting for our country. It's not just you're typical poster boy, GI Joes doing it."

Spc. Heidi Olson, a combat medic, received a purple heart for injuries she suffered when an IED exploded in Afghanistan last May.

"It makes it official now," Olson said. "We don't have to do the back door way of getting out into a combat zone."
___
Associated Press writer Julie Watson in San Diego and staff photographer Ted Warren in Seattle contributed to this report.

[Gaidin]

Here's what I can't quite process, regarding those against this.

Somehow it's ideological to say "If they can perform, let them." But it's not ideological to say "I don't care if they can perform, don't let them."

[PeZook]

Of course. When you say "There clearly exist women who are physically capable of doing the job, as history has showed time and time again. So why care about them not having a penis? Selection will make sure they are up to standards.", lots of people get outraged as if you just said something downright communist.

[Lagmonster]

Here's a question, because I don't know anything about the military: Why would special forces be allowed to retain segregation? Is there something about the discipline, missions, or fundamental operation of such a unit that makes it so? Is it purely an issue or boys-club prejudice, or are there reasons of performance or male combat psychology that demonstrates an actual problem with mixed-gender units?

[Zadius]

Here's a question, because I don't know anything about the military: Why would special forces be allowed to retain segregation? Is there something about the discipline, missions, or fundamental operation of such a unit that makes it so? Is it purely an issue or boys-club prejudice, or are there reasons of performance or male combat psychology that demonstrates an actual problem with mixed-gender units?

I don't see why it should be different than the military in general. I guess they just assume no woman could possibly qualify, so it's not cost-effective to waste time and money allowing women to try out for it. I mean, that's on top of the other reasons they don't like the idea of women in combat roles. If you've ever watched women in the Olympics, though, it's hard to argue with a straight face that no woman could ever succeed at it.

[fordlltwm]

Is it possibly due to things like the scene in G.I. Jane where in the training exercise the Master Chief threatens to rape the female trainee after beating seven kinds of shit out of her and the rest of team nearly breaks due to her being female.

NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuDAV_FWTb8

[Dominarch's Hope]

As long as physical standards remain the same, I support this.

Yeah, as long as they hold new entrants to the current male standard, then whatever, but the second that starts to slide, I oppose it, since they're already a lot more lax than they used to be just for the men.

Guess what. Women have been serving in combat situations since 2003. There is no front line in Iraq or Afghanistan. Women have been directly attached to combat units. And I haven't heard about a massive drop in effectiveness.

There are different roles that be be conducted within a combat unit. The requirements should be adaptive based on the role of the soldier. If you keep the infantry requirements high, all that means is women will be "attached" to the unit to make use of their capabilities.

Just look at the Marines Lioness program. Specifically attaching women to combat units to use them in an advantageous role in Afghanistan. The supposedly super strict rifleman standards for marine infantry becomes irrelevant.

Combat isnt the issue with infantry. Its marching with 100lbs and THEN being combat ready and doing that dismount shit for months on it and still remaining combat ready.


Its physiological endurance. Plain and simple.

[PeZook]

Combat isnt the issue with infantry. Its marching with 100lbs and THEN being combat ready and doing that dismount shit for months on it and still remaining combat ready.


Its physiological endurance. Plain and simple.

Yeah, and? Nobody argues ALL women could do it, or that combat units should have gender quotas to fill ; Statistics are ruthless, and fewer women can match that than men. The point is that kicking out the women who can pull it off because of what they have between the legs is sexism, in its purest form.

See my post on special forces ; The amount of women in the Polish GROM formation is miniscule, but they ARE there, because they passed selection and training.

[Aaron MkII]

Is it possibly due to things like the scene in G.I. Jane where in the training exercise the Master Chief threatens to rape the female trainee after beating seven kinds of shit out of her and the rest of team nearly breaks due to her being female.

NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuDAV_FWTb8

That's just a tired old cliche, it sticks around because people who make entertainment don't know jack shit about training largely erasing it.

And lets not forget that woman will already be serving in support roles to the SF. The helicopter squadron that supports Canada's JTF has a number of woman. As does CSOR and many other units engaged in SF support or in Afghanistan in general.

[PeZook]

Plus there are nations that have outright female operators. Bell curves have this weird property that data points also exist on their edges, not just in the middle, which people keep ignoring.

[Grumman]

Is it possibly due to things like the scene in G.I. Jane where in the training exercise the Master Chief threatens to rape the female trainee after beating seven kinds of shit out of her and the rest of team nearly breaks due to her being female.

From what has been said, it's the exact opposite: too many rapist-enablers who'd rather diagnose the victim with a mental disorder or threaten to court-martial her for adultery than actually get rid of people who are attacking their own squadmates.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Combat isnt the issue with infantry. Its marching with 100lbs and THEN being combat ready and doing that dismount shit for months on it and still remaining combat ready.


Its physiological endurance. Plain and simple.

Yeah, and? Nobody argues ALL women could do it, or that combat units should have gender quotas to fill ; Statistics are ruthless, and fewer women can match that than men. The point is that kicking out the women who can pull it off because of what they have between the legs is sexism, in its purest form.
See my post on special forces ; The amount of women in the Polish GROM formation is miniscule, but they ARE there, because they passed selection and training.

Its also fucking stupid. Especially since its an order of magnitude less women that volunteer in the first place and unless women start applying for infantry in equal numbers, then that would also account for sheer numerical disparity.

Thats what paranoid people are afraid of. Which would also be fucking stupid.


Esssentially, I dont think me and you have any arguements to have.

[amigocabal]

Combat isnt the issue with infantry. Its marching with 100lbs and THEN being combat ready and doing that dismount shit for months on it and still remaining combat ready.


Its physiological endurance. Plain and simple.

Yeah, and? Nobody argues ALL women could do it, or that combat units should have gender quotas to fill ; Statistics are ruthless, and fewer women can match that than men. The point is that kicking out the women who can pull it off because of what they have between the legs is sexism, in its purest form.
See my post on special forces ; The amount of women in the Polish GROM formation is miniscule, but they ARE there, because they passed selection and training.

Its also fucking stupid. Especially since its an order of magnitude less women that volunteer in the first place and unless women start applying for infantry in equal numbers, then that would also account for sheer numerical disparity.

Thats what paranoid people are afraid of. Which would also be fucking stupid.


Esssentially, I dont think me and you have any arguements to have.

I can only hope our leaders are not so fucking stupid that they would set gender quotas and alter standards to fit those quotas.

[Dominarch's Hope]

You really can only hope.

[Raj Ahten]

This decision, as many others have said, is long overdue and really is just bowing to realities in the field.

As to anyone who says woman aren't up to the physical challenge simply don't have a wide enough frame of reference. Woman have been wildland fire fighters in the most demanding positions on hot shot hand-crews and smokejumpers for years now. These crews do months of arduous physical labor in terrible conditions as a matter of course. The last I checked the smokejumper entry requirements include carrying 110 pounds on level terrain for 3 miles in 90 minutes or less with no running. (That test usually takes place on hilly terrain in practice as part of days long selection process that mirrors many elite military selection processes.) Weight limits shouldn't be a problem.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Yeah, thats not nearly the sheer body endurance that modern day overloaded infantryman have to bear.

Try that same weight, but marching with it, most of the day, for months on end. With maybe a day or two break and then right back to it. Its simply brutal grinding.

[Losonti Tokash]

You keep pounding this point about weight and endurance as if it's relevant. Women can clearly do it and have been for god knows how long already.

[Dominarch's Hope]

...Really? They have been used in massive numbers alongside infantry dismounts?


Prove. It. Now. With a nation that has a large female infantry force that has been throught the same shit as the men in Afghanistan, for months on end.