Author Topic: panetta to lift ban on women in combat. (Read 1113 times)

powderman · « **on:** January 23, 2013, 02:35:40 PM »

Panetta to lift ban on women in combat Published January 23, 2013
FoxNews.com

FILE: Nov. 29, 2012: Lt. Brandy Soublet on the Marine base 29 Palms in Southern California. Image provided by the United States Marine Corps. (AP)

Women in all branches of the military soon will have unprecedented opportunities to serve on the front lines of the nation's wars.
Leon Panetta, in one of his last acts as President Obama's defense secretary, is preparing to announce the policy change, which would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war, the Pentagon confirmed Wednesday.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

"This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the secretary of defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," a senior defense official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

Some front-line military roles may open to women as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer.
A defense official told the Associated Press that the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15. The announcement on Panetta's decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity.
Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.
Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., said he supports Panetta's decision.

"The fact is that American women are already serving in harm's way today all over the world and in every branch of our armed forces," he said in a statement. "Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, and our nation owes them a deep debt of gratitude."
In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached -- but not formally assigned -- to units on the front lines.

Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel.
Panetta is preparing to step down as Obama begins his second term, with former Sen. Charles Hagel nominated to take Panetta's place.
Fox News' Justin Fishel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/#ixzz2IqukQ188

BBF · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2013, 06:12:41 PM »

Arrgh !!

Dee · « **Reply #2 on:** January 24, 2013, 12:46:17 AM »

Equal rights for the feminist.

Swift One · « **Reply #3 on:** January 24, 2013, 01:28:03 AM »

This would and will be a very bad mistake. Men mixed with women is not a good recipe in the combat theatre.

Anna · « **Reply #4 on:** January 24, 2013, 01:43:58 AM »

This could cause a lot of problems. Although women who have had a hysterectomy have been found
to make better astronauts where upper body strength isn't needed in space.
Front line combat is a totally different story . Feminist need to stop the PC crap and realize there are
certian situations that are gender specific. Israel found this out years ago and women were more
qualified in logistic support roles or even as pilots. The real problem comes to into play when they
are captured by the enemy for obvious reasons. This could become a real liability for any army
trying to operate in adverse conditions.

Swift One · « **Reply #5 on:** January 24, 2013, 03:26:06 AM »

Quote

The real problem comes to into play when they
are captured by the enemy for obvious reasons

While that's a genuine concern, it's an isolated one compared to the more every day situations. Young, aspiring, very inshape, good looking women, sitting around in a combat zone with a bunch of young, testosterone driven alpha style men. Ya... that is not going to go over too well. Lot's of down time at the FOB, and plenty of opportunities will exist. Plenty of preganancies will occur. Stupid actions will happen with the young mean trying to impress the young females during combat. Fighting among the males to try and "out do" each other to impress the females. Ya, not good. Some females turn into emotional train wrecks during their menstration cylces. The "Mother Gene" that almost all females have hardwired into their brain that WILL kick in when they see displaced, injured, or dead kids in or about the battlefield. Men act a little differently towards that than women do- and rightly so. Dads love. Moms love selflessly.

With all this being said, I do think that females have a place in the combat aviation sector of warfare. Smaller frames, better dextarity, a more analytical thought process, and generally more organized. If memory serves me correctly, I do believe that we already have some successful female fighter pilots and helicopter pilots. Women generally take the gold over men when it comes to book smarts.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #6 on:** January 24, 2013, 03:32:49 AM »

Quote from: Anna on January 24, 2013, 01:43:58 AM

This could cause a lot of problems. Although women who have had a hysterectomy have been found
to make better astronauts where upper body strength isn't needed in space.
Front line combat is a totally different story . Feminist need to stop the PC crap and realize there are
certian situations that are gender specific. Israel found this out years ago and women were more
qualified in logistic support roles or even as pilots. The real problem comes to into play when they
are captured by the enemy for obvious reasons. This could become a real liability for any army
trying to operate in adverse conditions.

Are you suggesting if men had a hysterectomy they would make better Astronauts

I guess it could work. So many of the young generation males I see on the tube look and act like they have the right parts

"Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, and our nation owes them a deep debt of gratitude."They have always deserved deep debt of gratitude for being Mothers, and wives. If a war becomes necessary to protect our way of life, and our Women and children, then IMO (Men) should be the ones who put their lives on the line.

powderman · « **Reply #7 on:** January 24, 2013, 03:50:39 AM »

Heres a poll on it. POWDERMAN.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/24/do-agree-with-decision-to-lift-ban-on-women-in-combat/

mcbammer · « **Reply #8 on:** January 24, 2013, 05:23:05 AM »

If they ever run out of ammo they can always talk em to death.

Dee · « **Reply #9 on:** January 24, 2013, 05:58:07 AM »

I personally think they should form battalions of feminist women ONLY. Sending an all woman combat team of feminist women in would, prove a point, remove a problem, and keep male enemy combatants busy while Real troops moved in.

powderman · « **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2013, 06:14:59 AM »

Many years ago an old feller said. If God intended for men and women to be equal he wouldn't have made men with big muscles and women with big boobs.
The Lou police and fire depts had to LOWER standards and requirements to accomodate females. Every once in a while an officer will get a real beating because they send a woman to do a mans job, stupid.
Pilots, yes, support, yes, front line combat, NOOOOO. POWDERMAN.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #11 on:** January 24, 2013, 06:28:16 AM »

Yea, guess you all are correct, women are no good on the front lines.

http://englishrussia.com/2012/03/08/outstanding-soviet-female-snipers-of-wwii/

GuzziJohn

ironglow · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2013, 06:38:57 AM »

This whole game is just more PC games by PC people...you know..PC as in..." Pointless Cretans"!
It will be a real mess, it doesn't work. Talked by phone last night with my grandson, a veteran Marine Sgt in Special Ops with 2 deployments in heavy combat. He has also been involved in training troops and administering PT tests and has found that even though some butches can approach the lower men's level..their long range, long time endurance is quite lacking. Beyond that, the morale value and detriment to unit cohesion can be a problem.
Now, don't anybody start with that "hates women" garbage... He loves his mother, grandmothers, sisters and his beautiful wife..so they can just shut their clackers where that is concerned. Some such complaint may be expected from a militant lesbian..but not in the realm of normalcy.
When are people (or politicians) going to learn from voices of experience ? The Israelis tried that gambit on an experimental basis many years ago..and it failed miserably..
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146001

Perhaps this is a little game of trying to shame the many young men who have shied away from serving in the military. I mean, having women out there taking a bullet for them..may be persuasive...if they have any masculine juices flowing..

BTW: One problem with the idea is the sense of responsibility men naturally feel for women. When a fellow troop is wounded..you summon call the attention of the medic or corpsman..then keep on fighting.. It may be OUR problem, but that is the way God designed us..
Which one of you guys would not go to help one of these fellow soldiers below, were they wounded?

powderman · « **Reply #13 on:** January 24, 2013, 08:31:10 AM »

Quote from: guzzijohn on January 24, 2013, 06:28:16 AM

Yea, guess you all are correct, women are no good on the front lines.

http://englishrussia.com/2012/03/08/outstanding-soviet-female-snipers-of-wwii/

GuzziJohn

guzzi. And that has WHAT to do with a woman going hand to hand against a man or being captured by the you know what ones?? NOTHING. Had Bush proposed this 5 years ago you would have been up in arms about that mean ol Bush, but let a libbydem say it, yer all for it. POWDERMAN.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #14 on:** January 24, 2013, 08:56:05 AM »

Let me try this post again.
Before I would let my daughter go into combat, I would hustle her across the border to Canada, and then volunteer to go in her place.
Women are not built to carry and operate the cumbersome load that our troops are subject to.

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #15 on:** January 24, 2013, 09:03:35 AM »

I think the problem will work itself out. Although the policy of women in combat is changing, the actual fact of them fighting won't happen. Just like in police departments with women officers. They serve a little time on the road before they get assigned to something less troublesome. Only the stoutest and the most perverted women stay in the field. Another factor is that once the policy goes into affect, women won't enlist, except for those mentioned above.

Hairy Chest · « **Reply #16 on:** January 24, 2013, 09:07:50 AM »

Sexual differentiation was high for the hunters of Europe for over a hundred thousand years. As the glacial age changed and warmer climates moved north, the Mediteranian types moved northward. The Mediteranians had a low sexual differentiation. Northern Europeans evolved with the men strong with ruddy complexions and the women were small framed and feminine. There were strong differences (differentiation) between the sexes. Now there is this feministic demand to change what for many has evolved over a million years. Good luck!

ironglow · « **Reply #17 on:** January 24, 2013, 09:29:30 AM »

Quote from: guzzijohn on January 24, 2013, 06:28:16 AM

Yea, guess you all are correct, women are no good on the front lines.

http://englishrussia.com/2012/03/08/outstanding-soviet-female-snipers-of-wwii/

GuzziJohn

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Guzzi;
I'd wager by your statement that you never served in the military, right? Nobody here suggested that women could not be snipers, especially if that is their operating MOS. Sniping generally doesn't take a high degree of athletics..especially with 100 lbs on your back. A sniper is high stress, moderate physical.
Here's a discussion between Marines concerning gear carried:
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
10.Three-Point Sling: "When you're jumping over rooftops you don't want to worry about dropping your weapon," said Cpl. Dave Willis, 3rd squad leader. "At any time you can just reach down and grab it." 11. Alice or Day pack: "Without these I don't know how I'd carry all of my gear," said Lance Cpl. Geoffery Bivins, a SAW gunner. "It displaces all of the weight around my body, so I'm not uncomfortable. When you're running with 100 pounds on your back, that's important." 12. Night Vision Goggles: "Wearing these at night gives you the advantage over the enemy," said Lance Cpl. Marquirez Chavery, a combat engineer. "When you're on a rooftop at night you can see everything."
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Now consider that 100 lb pack, then a SAW gun..maybe 20-30 lbs 7 other gear.
The Israelis did away with women in combat units per se..but kept their female snipers..no reason not to:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4285423,00.html

Besides; it's probably great for the terrorists' morale..just to know one of those "lowly" women are busy, picking off their best..

BUGEYE · « **Reply #18 on:** January 24, 2013, 10:27:25 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on January 24, 2013, 09:29:30 AM

Guzzi;
I'd wager by your statement that you never served in the military, right?

After WWII did conscientious objector have to go serve behind the lines, or did the military just rather not fool with them??
A lot of liberals climed .

lakota · « **Reply #19 on:** January 25, 2013, 05:46:43 AM »

Ladies now you too can experience the horrors of front line combat! What a score for the feminists. Congratulations seem to be in order I guess?

magooch · « **Reply #20 on:** January 25, 2013, 05:58:12 AM »

Next will be real equality--old ladies and little kids should round out our military forces to suit the "progressives" and make us all safer.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #21 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:07:29 AM »

I did not serve since I graduated from high school in 1973 and the draft had been discontinued. I have no problem with women serving in combat roles if the so wish AND MEET THE SAME REQUIREMENTS AS MALE SOLDIERS HAVE TOO. If those requirements are lowed then I do have a problem with it.
GuzziJohn

dwalk · « **Reply #22 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:20:51 AM »

panetta is catering to obama and his agenda for "social justice" and "Equality"

i have no heartburn with women in the military.

i DO have heartburn with them as combatants; especially if they're integrated with male combatants.

1. first and foremost...as a whole, men are raise and trained, to protect women.

2. women WILL be a distraction in combat.

for those of you who know what i mean here:

imagine if you had your point woman at your 10 meter interval and you're trying to watch her swing her butt instead of paying attention to the job at hand...a sure recipe for disaster! or you're in a tank and your TC likes to wear tight pants??? or your fighting position partner is a cute little "Girl of your dreams"? you're in a submarine with a mixed crew...do you have shared facilities?

i recall the load i had to carry as an assistant MGr...could they handle a load that's even larger than i had to bear? today's infantry carry much more of a load than we did; i carried 30-06 ammo, too...basic load was two, 200 rd boxes of 30-06 for the M1919, PLUS four bandoleers of 30-06 for the M1 garand carried PLUS grenades, PLUS two or three 40 MM mortar rounds...plus your personal gear...plus at least two canteens of water...that was in the early years of VN...

i shutter to think about POW's..and especially WOMEN as POW's...just ask PFC Jessica Lynch.

just wait until mr & mrs america see their daughters coming home in masses of body bags...sons coming home that way is bad enough.

there is going to be problems...

yes... Israel has many women in IDF...the entire population of Israel is only 7 million... Israel struggles to survive daily, we aren't that way...YET

China and Russia field MANY women...but they're noted for their human rights abuses, too...

i say: it's a VERY BAD MOVE!!!

mcbammer · « **Reply #23 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:33:57 AM »

God help the young lady captured by the Taliban.

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #24 on:** January 25, 2013, 07:14:49 AM »

I say don't worry about 'em. If they enlist, they have to know where they might go. The day might come when we don't have enough men; then we'll be glad that the women are on the field doing what little they might. If I were in the heat of battle alone, I'd rather have a female come and help me than have no help at all. Still, I don't think it will really happen. Girls will either be assigned a less dangerous duty, or they are of the don't ask don't tell variety and will do fine in the field.

BBF · « **Reply #25 on:** January 25, 2013, 08:21:24 AM »

Quote from: dwalk on January 25, 2013, 06:20:51 AM

.....
....................

yes... Israel has many women in IDF...the entire population of Israel is only 7 million... Israel struggles to survive daily.........

The only struggle I see is for them to keep fooling the rest of the world how wonderful they are and "why is everbody picking on me" song and dance.

For the OP. All political decisions, and it was/is a very bad one.

ironglow · « **Reply #26 on:** January 25, 2013, 02:03:51 PM »

The terrorists must feel priviliged to think that some beautiful Israeli chick may well dispatch them to their 72 virgins..NOT..
Below see IDF sniper gal..I would like to make her a sign which says;
" Terrorist photo shop..
Look into the camera..
...smile... ..watch for the flash"

The other photo shows an Arab Gal..one of the smart ones (Elinor), who is "proud to be serving" in the IDF..she's the first of her kind..
...and the article I got Elinor's story from.. http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blog/list?tag=IDF

Hairy Chest · « **Reply #27 on:** January 25, 2013, 03:18:42 PM »

Nazi Germany's women stayed at home throughout the war while the men fought at the front against Communism.

Anna · « **Reply #28 on:** January 25, 2013, 03:58:54 PM »

Quote from: nw_hunter on January 24, 2013, 03:32:49 AM

Quote from: Anna on January 24, 2013, 01:43:58 AM
This could cause a lot of problems. Although women who have had a hysterectomy have been found
to make better astronauts where upper body strength isn't needed in space.
Front line combat is a totally different story . Feminist need to stop the PC crap and realize there are
certian situations that are gender specific. Israel found this out years ago and women were more
qualified in logistic support roles or even as pilots. The real problem comes to into play when they
are captured by the enemy for obvious reasons. This could become a real liability for any army
trying to operate in adverse conditions.

Are you suggesting if men had a hysterectomy they would make better Astronauts I guess it could work. So many of the young generation males I see on the tube look and act like they have the right parts "Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, and our nation owes them a deep debt of gratitude."They have always deserved deep debt of gratitude for being Mothers, and wives. If a war becomes necessary to protect our way of life, and our Women and children, then IMO (Men) should be the ones who put their lives on the line.

A little off topic NW but the whole NASA thing comes down to several factors when it comes to women
astronauts . First of all have you ever seen a woman astronaut in person ? They are small in frame.
Not the female passengers that flew on the shuttle but the crew themselves. Women use less oxygen,
they eat less, drink less , take up less room , and are less susceptible to G forces than a man with twice the mass of body weight. The hysterectomy thing came into play because NASA couldn't
time a launch window around a woman's time of month. Gravity causes the menstral flow to work its
way downward where it leaves her body . In weightlessness if this does not happen the woman comes
down with toxic shock syndrome. A woman's muscles and bones are not as effected by prolonged exposure to zero gravity as a mans are . So there, just admit it you dudes in space women rule and men drool !

ironglow · « **Reply #29 on:** January 25, 2013, 05:55:09 PM »

Very interesting analysis Anna..it makes sense..just as a female sniper makes sense.. A well trained woman can shoot as well as a well trained man...and most snipers are not bogged down with the huge packs etc..which infantrymen must carry.
No doubt, there are numerous jobs women can generally do better than a man. Often times this includes jobs which require great manual dexterity.
If top leaders..civilian & military both woud quit worrying about quotas & set asides or Political Correctness and just place people where they work best, we would all be much better off.