Pentagon opens combat roles to women

Thursday, January 24, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

The changes, set to be announced today by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, will not happen overnight. The services must now develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army’s Delta Force, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.

Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.

There long has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.

But as news of Panetta’s expected order got out, members of Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced their support.

“It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations,” Levin said.

Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will be the top Republican on the Armed Services panel, said, however, that he does not believe this will be a broad opening of combat roles for women because there are practical barriers that have to be overcome in order to protect the safety and privacy of all members of the military.

Panetta’s move comes in his final weeks as Pentagon chief and just days after President Barack Obama’s inaugural speech in which he spoke passionately about equal rights for all. The new order expands the department’s action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. Panetta’s decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.

Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and they often included top command and support staff.

The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to battalions. So while a woman couldn’t be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.

And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.

Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs — including some infantry and commando positions.

In the Navy, however, women have begun moving into the submarine force, with several officers already beginning to serve.

Jon Soltz, who served two Army tours in Iraq and is the chairman of the veterans group VoteVets.org, said it may be difficult for the military services to carve out exceptions to the new rule. And while he acknowledged that not all women are interested in pursuing some of the gritty combat jobs, “some of them are, and when you’re looking for the best of the best you cast a wide net. There are women who can meet these standards, and they have a right to compete.”

Two lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Pentagon’s ban on women serving in combat, adding pressure on officials to overturn the policy. And the military services have been studying the issue and surveying their forces to determine how it may affect performance and morale.

The Joint Chiefs have been meeting regularly on the matter and they unanimously agreed to send the recommendation to Panetta earlier this month.

Part of the process, an official said, would allow time to get female service members in leadership and officer positions in some of the more difficult job classifications in order to help pave the way for female enlisted troops.

“Not every woman makes a good soldier, but not every man makes a good soldier. So women will compete,” said Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif. “We’re not asking that standards be lowered. We’re saying that if they can be effective and they can be a good soldier or a good Marine in that particular operation, then give them a shot.”

More like this story

spelchek 3 months, 4 weeks ago

I can't wait until another draft, then we can watch our daughters get sent to the front line.

connor 3 months, 4 weeks ago

The entire agenda of this move can be summed up in this one sentence of the article.

You can drop the part about paving the way for enlisted troops. This is simply a move to attempt to get more Liberal minded women into the officer ranks with combat experience (or something they can pass off as combat experience) which will open up general command slots that require combat command experience to fill.

Just like the Marine corp found out the number of women able to physically withstand the rigors of combat and combat training are statistically nonexistent but there are plenty of officers who can be paraded through and then catapulted to high rank just waiting for their chance.

It will cost more (mostly young male) lives and destroy unit cohesion but also open up a lucrative side business for those few enlisted women willing to charge for their charms in combat zones. All of that will be glossed over or never reported but with luck before Obummer is forced out of office in four years he can begin promoting his Feminist generals to every position imaginable.

There was an article I read a few months ago that claims this has already been going on in several low profile but very important command slots already.

Then they will control the Supreme court (if a few old white guys would just die anyway), schools and Military. Or so he hopes.

RobHunterJohnson 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Maybe they could pick up that Draft Dodging Ted Nugent as well! Rob (1H)

spelchek 3 months, 4 weeks ago

I think you meant to say "that Draft Dodging, non-inhaling, Bill Clinton as well!

asb 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Yes, great comparison. A former President and a former . . . um . . . psycho . . . er, musician (he really did put on a good show before his brain fell apart).

connor 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Or the fake veteran Kerry.

eileen10 3 months, 4 weeks ago

OMG. If women go into battle all I see is disaster. There would more than likely be some men who would feel they'd have to keep the women safe which would cause even more deaths. I agree with connor that women aren't made for the rigors of battle. That was also mentioned in the article. The women's movement had some good things come out of it but there's a limit to everything and I for one do not agree with sending women into battle. Last night I was thinking of all the men who have died and that had they lived and had children....well it means whole generations of people are gone. Never to be. With war comes death and I wish there were no wars because there are so many greiving families and for what? Wars we never should have been involved in. Some yes and others no. I need a ciggy and a cup of coffee because I suddenly feel very out of sorts.

JCLifer 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Well, of course it will be a disaster. What if they break a nail? What if their mascara needs to be reapplied in a foxhole and there is no mirror? What if they get a period? Way too many problems here.

eileen10 3 months, 4 weeks ago

You crack me up!

Sequoia 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Wake up. Women are already serving in combat. This is not an "agenda," its just a case of policy recognizing reality. 152 women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260123802564276.html

From the article;

Army Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt, who was injured in 2007 by a roadside bomb in Iraq, said in an interview Wednesday that the current ban on women in combat is "a legal fiction." She said women have long faced the same front-line dangers from militants and improvised explosive devises as men.

"Right before the IED went off, it didn't ask me how many push-ups or sit-ups I could do," said Ms. Hunt, one of the women who filed a lawsuit last year to challenge the ban. "Right now the women who are serving are being engaged in combat, so their physical restrictions aren't a barrier."

connor 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Ya whatever. According to the Pentagon's official casualty reports for Iraq and Afghanistan women have been 2.4% of total casualties despite making up 16% of the total in theater numbers.

The IED maynot care how many pushups you can do but your combat unit will sure as hades care how many rounds of 5.56 belted ammo you can carry.

But then again those who push for reduced standards and higher casualties for the men are not the ones paying the price now are they?

Sequoia 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Ya, watevzs, but you should read up on the details before you hit the keyboard. I even gave you the article.

Check it, homie:

That will change Thursday when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta rescinds the 1994 Pentagon policy that bans women, who now make up about 14% of active-duty military personnel, from combat. The new measure will allow women to serve in combat roles—but, importantly, allow the military services to establish exceptions.

"Does that mean that women are going to be full-up Navy SEALs? Probably not," said Maren Leed, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who served until last year as a senior adviser to the U.S. Army chief of staff. "It probably means there will be sub-specialties within the SEALs for which they are eligible."

connor 3 months, 4 weeks ago

You really should try and see past the limited, one sided views of your favored Gay pundits.

However your reply speaks volumes. Here we are talking about combat troops and the Liberal/Feminist religious orators are already spreading the word about elite forces units.

Dead is dead and the ones who are going to be paying for this next step in female superiority of equality are going to be our young men, with their lives just so the higher ups in the Church of Feminism can put a couple of women in combat and run a female officer cadre through the steps.

Sequoia 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Gay pundits? Dude, the article I posted is from the WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Please, for the love of gravy, please take a minute to read something. Just read. You don't have to share my position, but please just take a minute to learn the specific facts of the issue you're commenting on. You force me to waste precious time informing you and lose time that I could be arguing with you.

Because this is about more than some kind of symbolic feminism. My understanding is that combat service renders one eligible for jobs and higher levels of service. My view is that, in general, the standards for certain elite service shouldn't change, but that women should be allowed to try. No job should be closed to a person simply because they are a woman. I understand a job having physical requirements, but that's different than pointless gender discrimination. That's the way this policy changes seems to work.

Just like gays in the military, after this change is implemented, we'll wonder what some of us were so worried about.

connor 3 months, 4 weeks ago

A quick look at Julian Barnes twitter feed shows his true liberal bent, although I will grant you he is married I think and has children. Nissenbaum is a bit harder to sort or find out anything about but being a security reporter that is understandable. His face book is all over the place as well at least for a Washington reporter although I would call it heavily liberal bending.

But it is not their particular article I care about. It really says nothing about what we are discussing nor is it the wellspring that your views constantly flow from.

After 50 years of failed and destructive policies, all of which were ushered in with the same rhetoric that you continue to spout off here.

They are NOT coming for your guns...

Immigrants will Not take your jobs.

Deficits are not worth worrying about.

You are right though it is about the jobs that open up, not placing enlisted women into combat. Which is what I pointed out and you had to argue with even while supporting my point with your own comments.

I understand you see yourself as some sort of Liberal/Feminist pied piper hoping to downplay the lefts actions in an attempt to lull the herd but after 50 some odd years of it people can see a power grab when it presents itself.

spelchek 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Let them sleep together, shower together, run together, lift together, shoot together, eat together........no separate treatment or quarters, nor separate physical qualifications. Funny how these initiatives get pushed up by Presidents with zero military experience or knowledge thereof. This move has ulterior motives, I'm sure of it.

uniform: Always the same, as in character or degree; unvarying

asb 3 months, 4 weeks ago

To see a hidden agenda where none exists or is needed is paranoid. The military's agenda es well established already, if you're fit, you fight. Formally including women, with service and function-specific constraints, in combat roles doesn't lower standards nearly as much as when the draft was stopped. The agenda I see most clearly here, and it's hardly hidden, is a deep disrespect for women in any role but on their backs making sad sacks feel good about their limited selves.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

News Tribune