Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:16 PM
NYC Liberal (15,618 posts)
Panetta opens combat roles to womenLast edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Source: AP
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war. 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. Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WOMEN_IN_COMBAT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-23-15-14-12
|
38 replies, 3022 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| NYC Liberal | Jan 2013 | OP | |
| sinkingfeeling | Jan 2013 | #1 | |
| Tx4obama | Jan 2013 | #2 | |
| TwilightGardener | Jan 2013 | #3 | |
| NYC Liberal | Jan 2013 | #5 | |
| onehandle | Jan 2013 | #4 | |
| katmondoo | Jan 2013 | #6 | |
| Recursion | Jan 2013 | #7 | |
| Xithras | Jan 2013 | #8 | |
| WooWooWoo | Jan 2013 | #12 | |
| actslikeacarrot | Jan 2013 | #22 | |
| jtuck004 | Jan 2013 | #28 | |
| Xithras | Jan 2013 | #31 | |
| pasto76 | Jan 2013 | #32 | |
| jtuck004 | Jan 2013 | #34 | |
| jtuck004 | Jan 2013 | #36 | |
| Earth_First | Jan 2013 | #9 | |
| Stand and Fight | Jan 2013 | #10 | |
| actslikeacarrot | Jan 2013 | #23 | |
| grantcart | Jan 2013 | #11 | |
| Tx4obama | Jan 2013 | #13 | |
| Leslie Valley | Jan 2013 | #14 | |
| pasto76 | Jan 2013 | #33 | |
| adieu | Jan 2013 | #15 | |
| BumRushDaShow | Jan 2013 | #16 | |
| TwilightGardener | Jan 2013 | #17 | |
| actslikeacarrot | Jan 2013 | #21 | |
| msanthrope | Jan 2013 | #24 | |
| actslikeacarrot | Jan 2013 | #25 | |
| msanthrope | Jan 2013 | #26 | |
| actslikeacarrot | Jan 2013 | #27 | |
| actslikeacarrot | Jan 2013 | #20 | |
| bluestateguy | Jan 2013 | #18 | |
| Javaman | Jan 2013 | #19 | |
| jtuck004 | Jan 2013 | #29 | |
| 2Design | Jan 2013 | #30 | |
| pasto76 | Jan 2013 | #35 | |
| Purveyor | Jan 2013 | #37 | |
| DollarBillHines | Jan 2013 | #38 |
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:18 PM
sinkingfeeling (28,085 posts)
1. Finally!!
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:19 PM
Tx4obama (29,913 posts)
2. Here is a link to a AP article
|
Panetta opens combat roles to women WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war. 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. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WOMEN_IN_COMBAT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-23-15-14-12 |
Response to Tx4obama (Reply #2)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:20 PM
TwilightGardener (39,696 posts)
3. I thought this had been settled a couple months ago? Oh well, good on him (and Obama).
Response to Tx4obama (Reply #2)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:22 PM
NYC Liberal (15,618 posts)
5. Updated! Thanks!
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:22 PM
onehandle (35,995 posts)
4. First teh gays. Now teh gurls. This is who I think of, re: women in combat...
|
Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
|
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:29 PM
katmondoo (1,802 posts)
6. Not for me
|
I could never get past the first day of training. For those who volunteer OK if this is what you want.
|
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:45 PM
Recursion (26,242 posts)
7. The distinction between "combat" and "non-combat" has been somewhat quaint for awhile
|
Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:45 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) We used to "joke" about that in the sandbox.
Still, kind of a nice little parting "F You" to the Pentagon from Panetta, and it will be interesting to see where Hagel goes with this. (I don't mean it's a bad idea, I mean the Pentagon hates it.) |
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:46 PM
Xithras (13,566 posts)
8. The distinction was stupid and pointless anyway.
|
The distinction between a "combat" and a "non-combat" position is only meaningful in a war with an actual front and rear. In modern warfare, where attacks can strike anywhere, it's tough to argue that any position is really outside of the combat zone.
If you can be shot at, it's a combat position. |
Response to Xithras (Reply #8)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:03 PM
WooWooWoo (403 posts)
12. the only difference now is the training
|
since men and women still have different PT standards, how are these units going to train together?
|
Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #12)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:59 PM
actslikeacarrot (223 posts)
22. I think the next step..
|
...is they are going to standardize the PT requirements across the board. Dont pass, get admin sepp'ed out after a certain amount of time to allow someone to get in regs again.
|
Response to Xithras (Reply #8)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:47 PM
jtuck004 (5,234 posts)
28. When they send purchasing agents on a mission to rescue hostages or take a forward enemy
|
position out, I will remember this post
|
Response to jtuck004 (Reply #28)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:13 PM
Xithras (13,566 posts)
31. I was referring to mechanics, field translators, etc.
|
For example, there are currently combat patrols in Afghanistan where women join the men on patrol as translators and because Afghan culture makes it difficult for civilian women to communicate with male soldiers. These female soldiers carry firearms, wear armor, and walk the same patrols as men, but they are classified as translators or liasons, and not as combat soldiers. Same location, same duty, different title, lower pay.
Or look at the infamous story of Jessica Lynch's unit. She was part of a supply quartermasters unit, an allegedly "noncombat" unit that allowed women to serve. She still ended up shot and captured, which was still an admittedly better fate than her dead colleagues. "Combat" and "noncombat" designations are largely pointless in modern warfare. Any soldier, on any base or vehicle, can find themselves in combat virtually anywhere. To deny women combat pay and promotions, when they are already dying alongside men, is equally pointless. |
Response to jtuck004 (Reply #28)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:23 PM
pasto76 (1,348 posts)
32. all 40 of the females in my company are right now saying F you
|
they road and drove the same IED strewn miles as us male types.
Many of them were better soldiers than HALF the dickheads in my platoon. I could put a squad together from back then and order them to take "a forward enemy position" and have zero doubt they would succeed. You all need to stop worrying about how manly you dont already look and give it up. White male troops do NOT have a lock on combat. To even suggest so is to completely disrespect the many TENS OF THOUSANDS of females who have fought their way out of ambushes or defended the perimeter, in BOTH wars, for the past DECADE. get over it already. wait, are you even IN the service? with the slim chance that you are, are you even IN a combat unit? I am. |
Response to pasto76 (Reply #32)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:27 PM
jtuck004 (5,234 posts)
34. My comment was to someone who said anyone who gets shot at is combat, and
|
Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:38 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) that's just hyperbole.
There are lots of people in the service who are not combatants. But perhaps you feel a need to fight everyone. Good luck. Btw, I don't have to explain my previous service to you or anyone else. |
Response to pasto76 (Reply #32)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:09 PM
jtuck004 (5,234 posts)
36. I just figured out, you thought I was talking about women.
|
The purchasing agent I was talking about is, and this may come as a shock to you, a guy. |
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:46 PM
Earth_First (11,819 posts)
9. You know what would be better? Ending combat. n/t
Response to Earth_First (Reply #9)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:49 PM
Stand and Fight (6,157 posts)
10. BINGO!
|
Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:50 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) I ought to be able to recommend your post alone!
|
Response to Earth_First (Reply #9)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:00 PM
actslikeacarrot (223 posts)
23. Agreed. N/T
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:55 PM
grantcart (38,891 posts)
11. !!!!BANG!!!!
|
Strangest thing. I was watching a guy walk by with a "Smile Jesus Loves You" t shirt eating a Chicken Fil A sandwich and he was listening to the news on his I Phone and his head just popped. Now I know why. Gonna be a lot of heads exploding all over the place. |
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:11 PM
Tx4obama (29,913 posts)
13. UPDATE - more detailed info
|
The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, CNN has learned. Multiple officials confirm to CNN that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement tomorrow and notify Congress of the planned change in policy. “We will eliminate the policy of ‘no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,’” a senior defense official says. But the officials caution that “not every position will open all at once on Thursday.” Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an “assessment phase,” in which each branch of service will examine all of its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable in which it can integrate them. -snip- http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/ |
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:14 PM
Leslie Valley (310 posts)
14. And now, as a final measure of equality
|
The opportunity to register for the draft should be made a requirement also.
I know the Pentagon hates it, but I'm all for reactivating the draft. The protests in the '60's were as much against the draft as they were against the war. Maybe if everybody had a stake in the game our government wouldn't be in as much of a hurry to deploy our troops all over the world. Pay attention to Algeria and Mali. |
Response to Leslie Valley (Reply #14)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:26 PM
pasto76 (1,348 posts)
33. word. +1
|
that was how the current reserve system was designed by Generals Powell and Schwarzkopf. It was supposed to hurt the community by mobilizing the reserves to sustain a real war effort.
I am in fact, watching closely those two countries. |
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:24 PM
adieu (531 posts)
15. A better thing to do is
|
close combat roles for both men and women. Stop going to war altogether.
|
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:26 PM
BumRushDaShow (12,021 posts)
16. HOLY SHIT!
|
That is major major major.
This should hopefully allow those women working the front but not "officially" combatants, to FINALLY get some combat pay! |
Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #16)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:30 PM
TwilightGardener (39,696 posts)
17. Promotions--that's the big ticket item.
Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #17)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:55 PM
actslikeacarrot (223 posts)
21. If women want...
|
...to join the infantry, at least in the Marines, they might not get the promotion they are looking for. the 03xx field traditionally has had higher cutting scores than other jobs. Just ask any 0351 (assaultmen) haha. The real disproportionate promotions have been at the top of the officer ranks, as having combat experience or coming from the combat field is almost a requirement for a star.
|
Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #21)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:11 PM
msanthrope (16,907 posts)
24. Your concern is noted. Please feel free to share more of your concerns, and enjoy your stay. nt
Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:28 PM
actslikeacarrot (223 posts)
25. Ah, I see, your calling me a troll.
|
Well Here are the new cutting scores for Feb 13 for active duty Marine Corps. 0311(Rifleman)-1718 0331(Machinegunner)-1678 0341(Mortarmen)-1667 0351(Assaultman)-1709. These are the cutting scores you need to have to pick up E4 in the infantry. You dont get any points for deploying or being in combat, it's all time in service and MCI's. Now compare that to a 6216(fixed wing aircraft mechanic)-1592. Some non-infantry jobs have higher cutting scores, and some are even closed out! But that is why I said that the infantry TRADITIONALLY had higher cutting scores than most other jobs.
And before this gets even further, I have consistently been on the side of equality, and if a woman wants to join the infantry and can hack it, more power to her. Not sure why you are thinking I am a troll. |
Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #25)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:33 PM
msanthrope (16,907 posts)
26. Bless your heart. I have accused you of nothing. I truly wish you would air more of your concerns,
|
and I want you to enjoy your stay.
Thank you for your service. Where are you currently stationed? |
Response to msanthrope (Reply #26)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:39 PM
actslikeacarrot (223 posts)
27. I was a lurker...
|
...long before I signed up in 2008 and know when someone is calling someone a "concern troll." I also have been in the south long enough to know what "bless your heart" is really saying. I will kindly see my way out of this thread as this is either going to go nowhere fast or into a brick wall. Thank you for your time.
|
Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #16)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:51 PM
actslikeacarrot (223 posts)
20. Actually,,,
|
if your in country you get combat pay no matter if your a grunt patrolling everyday or an admin clerk on leatherneck. There was talk of making combat and imminent danger pay a "sliding scale" by how close you were to the enemy and for how long, but that will never change I think.
|
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:49 PM
bluestateguy (40,060 posts)
18. Elaine Donnely and her fake think tank are going to shit in their pants
|
nt
|
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:50 PM
Javaman (40,858 posts)
19. I knew this was happening for about 4 months...
|
I women here in my office, well her daughter in law is was to be shipped out to Afghanistan this month with her "all female" unit and were to be one of the first all female combat units.
She, to the delight of my co-worker is staying state side for further training in another field the Army deemed more important for her. She is sad that she's not going with her unit, but I'm sure she will get over it after a while. |
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:48 PM
jtuck004 (5,234 posts)
29. Cool. Now all we need is a draft with no deferrments, and war will be finished. n/t
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:03 PM
2Design (9,057 posts)
30. I want our ERA amendment - this was one of their biggest fear mongering - we need equal rights
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:35 PM
pasto76 (1,348 posts)
35. to throw cold water on some of the hysteria
|
"in the works"
"real soon now" as in, a new camouflage pattern. as in, a replacement for the M4. Doesnt mean there will be significant movement on this issue in less than a geologic timeline. Im in rocket artillery. its not a physical job at all. almost no manual labor. no heavy lifting. The cabs of the launchers are pretty small...a female frame might be more comfortable in one than most males. wouldnt be a problem for 13M. 2016 is a long time away |
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:48 PM
Purveyor (13,456 posts)
37. Well then it is time that all women, once they turn 18 years of age, register for the Selective
|
Service I suppose.
|
Response to NYC Liberal (Original post)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:46 PM
DollarBillHines (1,922 posts)
38. I wonder about the emotional impact on guys when a woman gets shredded.
|
There must have been some extensive psychological research done.
Or not. Artillery troops, maybe, but not close-in in my opinion. |

