Women to the Frontlines in Combat

[SilentFeathers]

Wow, this is a huge change....I wonder why this now and what brought it about? Would Panetta or any other critter in Washington want their wives or daughters on the frontline getting torn to shreds?

Regardless, this is quite controversial to say the least, and "strange timing".

Panetta opens combat roles to women

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://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...oles-to-women/

Added:

This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

Now why would they do this? and why now? Sounds like they want the world to know our Military just increased their frontline capability.....

I really don't believe this has anything to do with "equal rights for women".....seems a bit more sinister to me.

[intruth]

More cannon fodder is my guess. Haven't seen the recruiting stats lately.

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by intruth (here)
More cannon fodder is my guess. Haven't seen the recruiting stats lately.

I personally do not see any reason for them to do this....except for the need for more soldiers in a HUGE invasion or defensive line, etc.

[NancyV]

Sounds like the same sort of political agenda as getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell" for gays in the military is for this administration. There is no way to legislate getting rid of homophobia and you can't make women the same as men. They seem determined to make everyone "equal" and of course that is an impossibility. I like being different from men and I sure as hell don't want to be "equal".

Women are not generally as strong as men, don't have as much endurance also don't normally make decisions the same way or as quickly. We think very differently than men. There is also NO way they are going to get rid of the aspect of sexual distractions and involvements between men and women in close quarters or men's natural instinct to protect women more than protecting other men. That distraction can, has already and will in the future have severe consequences.

My opinion is that women in combat, unless they are in ALL women units, is a very stupid, purely politically motivated move and won't work well at all. My ex-military husband's reasons for thinking it's stupid are much simpler than mine. He says what many soldiers like to say: "you can't trust anyone who bleeds for 1 week a month and doesn't die".

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by NancyV (here)
Sounds like the same sort of political agenda as getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell" for gays in the military is for this administration. There is no way to legislate getting rid of homophobia and you can't make women the same as men. They seem determined to make everyone "equal" and of course that is an impossibility. I like being different from men and I sure as hell don't want to be "equal".

Women are not generally as strong as men, don't have as much endurance also don't normally make decisions the same way or as quickly. We think very differently than men. There is also NO way they are going to get rid of the aspect of sexual distractions and involvements between men and women in close quarters or men's natural instinct to protect women more than protecting other men. That distraction can, has already and will in the future have severe consequences.

My opinion is that women in combat, unless they are in ALL women units, is a very stupid, purely politically motivated move and won't work well at all. My ex-military husband's reasons for thinking it's stupid are much simpler than mine. He says what many soldiers like to say: "you can't trust anyone who bleeds for 1 week a month and doesn't die".

Hi Nancy, I agree this is quite the unwise decision, but they don't care how many people die because of it.

[Arrowwind]

I would hope that any women doing combat would be there by choice and able to meet strick physical criteria.

I asked my husband if he though he could be on the front lines with me. He got a panic look.

The idea is absurd in general.. but there are some bulldozer women out there. They should be challenged if they want it. To me its just more opportunity for military rape incidents.

Forcing a man to act at a level of humanity he has not yet evolved to cant be done and there are obvioulsy a few of those needing such evolution in the military. There will be problems, and women are not beyond using their sexual identity directed at men for gains either. The battlefield is not place for these kinds of struggles.

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by Arrowwind (here)
I would hope that any women doing combat would be there by choice and able to meet strick physical criteria.

I doubt if there will an "opt out option" box on their orders when told to go to the front line.....kind'a defeats the purpose of lifting the ban IMO.

[Spiral]

This is just horrible, it really is.

I am not being sexist (wotever that is) but its very destructive to the very core of society. (think about it)

I know the Russians had some fantastic women squadrons that attacked Nazi tanks etc from the air in WW2, but they lost 40 million and had to fight however they could.

I'm sorry but I wouldn't want a woman beside me in a fox hole, why do they keep the sexes apart in sport ?

We are wired differently, its just the way it is.

Thats mentally as well as physically, you you think men get PTSD, just wait till women see front line service.

[another bob]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Air Force recorded an "appalling" number of reports of sexual assault last year even as it worked to curb misconduct in the wake of a sex scandal at its training headquarters in Texas, the service's top officer told lawmakers on Wednesday.

Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, said there were 796 reports of cases ranging from inappropriate touching to rape. The 2012 figure is a nearly 30 percent increase from 2011 when 614 cases were reported. The number could be much greater, Welsh said, because many cases are never reported at all.

"Calling these numbers unacceptable does not do the victims justice," Welsh said. "The truth is, these numbers are appalling!"

Welsh's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee underscores the challenges it and the other military branches face in stopping sexual assault within the ranks. Even more disturbing than the number of reports of sexual assault is the fact that most of these crimes are committed by fellow airmen, Welsh said.

The scandal at Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio continues to unfold nearly two years after the first victim came forward. All U.S. airmen report to Lackland for basic training. The base has about 500 military training instructors for about 35,000 airmen who graduate every year. While one in five recruits are women, most instructors are men.

The preliminary results of Air Force investigation released in November described abuses of power by bad instructors who took advantage of a weak oversight system to prey on young recruits.

The investigation, which is ongoing, has found so far that 32 military training instructors allegedly engaged in inappropriate or coercive sexual relationships with 59 recruits and airmen at Lackland, according to the Air Force. Six instructors have been convicted in court martials on charges ranging from adultery, rape and conducting unprofessional relationships. Another nine instructors are awaiting courts martial. Two more received non-judicial punishments. There are 15 instructors still under investigation.

The Air Force has changed the way it selects officers and instructors who train new recruits and created a special unit of lawyers and investigators to assist victims of sexual assault.

Welsh said he has stressed to the Air Force's officer corps and senior enlisted ranks the importance of eliminating sexual misconduct from the ranks. As part of that effort, Welsh issued a "Letter to Airmen" earlier this month that said images, songs and stories that are obscene or vulgar are not part of the Air Force heritage.

An Air Force veteran who pressed Congress to hold hearings on the misconduct at Lackland said there is a sexual assault epidemic in the military. Jennifer Norris said she medically retired in 2010 and was sexually assaulted while serving in the Air Force but not at Lackland. She told the committee she frequently has seen well-intentioned reforms fall short.

Fundamental reforms are needed "to change a military culture and fix the broken military justice system," said Norris, who serves as an advocacy board member of the group Protect Our Defenders.

http://news.yahoo.com/air-force-call...-politics.html

[humanalien]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
Wow, this is a huge change....I wonder why this now and what brought it about? Would Panetta or any other critter in Washington want their wives or daughters on the frontline getting torn to shreds?

Regardless, this is quite controversial to say the least, and "strange timing".

Panetta opens combat roles to women

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://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...oles-to-women/

Added:

This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

Now why would they do this? and why now? Sounds like they want the world to know our Military just increased their frontline capability.....

I really don't believe this has anything to do with "equal rights for women".....seems a bit more sinister to me.

I hope the women aren't shy or modest. Men and women
share the showers in the military now days.

[shadowstalker]

For the past 100 years slow but sure:TBTB State in not so many words...

So America we have down graded your education from k-12
We have financially exploited your Collage and University education, and down graded knowledge within. No wisdom for you.
We have Poissond your air/water/food and medication.
We Have manipulated your minds with TV/Radio/Books..

Well America for now there is nothing left for you, except for one thing..... The Military

Yes the Military where everyone over the the tender age of 18 is free to serve his/her country, where one can freely abuse there own personal aggressions (or the ones we jab into you) upon another human being.
Travel to any country you wish (so long as you can pass our tests)
Reach the rank of Captain(provided you lick our boots)with in a few short years.

And If you join now (so long as you don't read the small print)we will provide for your future,
Free Collage education (to which will get you no where)
Free Health Care (just don't say your sickness BE IT PHYSICAL OR MENTAL came from war)
Housing(providing you don't go nuts)

Everything will be provided to you provided you give up your Constitutional Rights. During your Military Stay and after.

[Ellisa]

If women want to be in the Army why should they not be able to fight in the frontline? That is what a soldier does, and if they are unable to access all aspects of the military experience, women will not be able to advance through promotion to all aspects of high command roles.

As for the sexual harassment problems etc. Perhaps when there are many women in the Army, and they are less of a novelty, there will not be the need for them to be fearful of such things. After all, homosexual soldiers are not restricted in their progress through the promotion pathways in the military any more, are they?

[Arrowwind]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)

Posted by Arrowwind (here)
I would hope that any women doing combat would be there by choice and able to meet strick physical criteria.

I doubt if there will an "opt out option" box on their orders when told to go to the front line.....kind'a defeats the purpose of lifting the ban IMO.

I would suspect that lack of an opt out option would keep many women from entering the military as they know they are not phsycially capable to keep up, where on the other hand they are fully capable for less physically demanding jobs that are essential to the mission. I had two women friends join the military and they discussed this quite a bit before they went in and they wanted a pretty good understanding of what physical work would be required from them. They knew their limitations.

[Arrowwind]

Posted by shadowstalker (here)
For the past 100 years slow but sure:TBTB State in not so many words...

So America we have down graded your education from k-12
We have financially exploited your Collage and University education, and down graded knowledge within. No wisdom for you.
We have Poissond your air/water/food and medication.
We Have manipulated your minds with TV/Radio/Books..

Well America for now there is nothing left for you, except for one thing..... The Military

Yes the Military where everyone over the the tender age of 18 is free to serve his/her country, where one can freely abuse there own personal aggressions (or the ones we jab into you) upon another human being.
Travel to any country you wish (so long as you can pass our tests)
Reach the rank of Captain(provided you lick our boots)with in a few short years.

And If you join now (so long as you don't read the small print)we will provide for your future,
Free Collage education (to which will get you no where)
Free Health Care (just don't say your sickness BE IT PHYSICAL OR MENTAL came from war)
Housing(providing you don't go nuts)

Everything will be provided to you provided you give up your Constitutional Rights. During your Military Stay and after.

Yep, thats pretty much the gist of it for a lot of kids.
but actually they do a fair job on the medical side as long as you are willing to take drugs and subscribe to their health philosophies. My husband gets VA medical benefits. So far I haven't let him do a dam thing they have recommended but on the other hand my neighbor got some very expensive spinal surguries that really helped him a lot.

They are still doing experimental vaccinations on the military. Its very sad. Some will suffer for ever from it.


¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by humanalien (here)
[I hope the women aren't shy or modest. Men and women
share the showers in the military now days.

thats terrible!

[NancyV]

Ex-SEAL Zinke: 'Nearly Certain' Women in Combat Will Cost Lives
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/zink...1/23/id/472695
Wednesday, 23 Jan 2013 07:19 PM
By David A. Patten

Former Navy SEAL commander and Montana State Sen. Ryan Zinke reacted sharply Wednesday to news the Obama administration will drop the prohibition against women serving in military combat roles, warning it is “nearly certain” to cost lives.

A Republican who served in the elite SEAL Team Six, Zinke cautioned that introducing male-female dynamics on the front lines “has the potential to degrade our combat readiness.”

“I know there are some women who can do the physical training,” Zinke told Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “When I was a SEAL instructor, the Olympic training center is in San Diego, and I watched some Olympic-caliber women athletes run through the obstacle course better than certainly many of the SEAL candidates could do.

“These were quality athletes. So physically, I think there are some women who can do it. But the issue is what are the unintended consequences? This is not a Demi Moore movie.

“In my opinion we’re not ready,” he said. “This is not a Hollywood movie. This has real consequences that are going to affect our sons and daughters whose lives are on the line. I think you need to go very, very carefully when it comes to the defense of our country.”

Sources say outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will announce his decision Thursday to allow female soldiers to participate in combat roles beginning later this year. Special units such as the SEALS, and the Army’s Delta Force, will have until 2016 to demonstrate why they should qualify for an exemption.

Zinke, who served in the SEALS from 1985 to 2008, said the administration’s order should be carefully reviewed.
During his time in the military, he said, he encountered “women operatives that were very, very good.”

The problem comes with unilaterally lifting the combat restriction across the board, he said.

“I think it’s going to have women wanting to be the first SEAL for the purpose of being the first SEAL,” he said. “The evolution of man, I think, is slower than the cultural evolution. And I think there will be unintentional consequences when it’s lifted across the board.”

Zinke also suggested that the decision does not appear to reflect a real-world understanding of combat.

“The hard truth of combat oftentimes is brutal,” he said. “It involves face-to-face, hand-to-hand, close-quarter battle. And I think we forget that. We’ve become so sensitized that warfare is wrapped up in a two-hour movie featuring stars who always live. And that’s not how it really is.”

The former Navy SEAL launched the Special Operations for America PAC during the height of last year’s presidential campaign. He said the decision to open up combat roles for women should have followed “a longer national discussion than a simple executive order.”

“I’m disappointed that it was taken lightly, and obviously it was,” he said.

Zinke also addressed concerns that mixing men and women on the front lines could impair unit morale and effectiveness.

“Let’s face it, it’s physically demanding, and distractions result in death,” he told Newsmax. “We’re not talking about mature men such as Panetta. We’re talking about 20-year-olds away from their families, close-quarters, out in the field. Relationships are going to happen, as they happen today on our naval vessels.”

His conclusion: “I think it is hasty and will result in unintended consequences that will lead unfortunately to a loss of life.”

Zinke added: “I believe that is nearly certain.”

[Ellisa]

Quoting Zinke:

His conclusion: “I think it is hasty and will result in unintended consequences that will lead unfortunately to a loss of life.”

Zinke added: “I believe that is nearly certain.”


Presumably the loss of life when it is 'just' men is somehow less upsetting than it would be if the soldier were to be a woman. If you think about it that is very patronising indeed. A soldier who dies serving their country deserves the same respect regardless of gender.

[norman]

"Women to the Frontlines in Combat"


A subliminal response to all those recent images of women standing in nature earnestly holding a rifle to defend theirs and everyone's freedom.

[TigaHawk]

I thought the reason they did not want women on the front lines is becuase if they are not locked at home popping out babies like a production line the country would eventualy loose because it runs out of soldiers to send to their deaths.

It would be a good way to lower and change the population, in regards to how many people are actualy reproducing and what kind of people are reproducing (any women whom had what it takes to be a soldier and kill, would be killed on the battlefield, and unable to have future generation of kids that would also have the same kind of personality... . probably explained quite poorly but i am sure you understand what i mean right??)

All done in a way which premotes "equal rights" and "empowerment" to the women.

lovely plan indeed. :|

[9eagle9]

To get rid of mouthy women like NancyV.

I'm only partially joking.

Think about it.

I think hubs is right. There is something altogether omnipotently threatening about a creature that bleeds for a week and doesn't die. Better to rid the world of such a scourge than have them running it....

Again I'm only partially joking.

Posted by NancyV (here)
Sounds like the same sort of political agenda as getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell" for gays in the military is for this administration. There is no way to legislate getting rid of homophobia and you can't make women the same as men. They seem determined to make everyone "equal" and of course that is an impossibility. I like being different from men and I sure as hell don't want to be "equal".

Women are not generally as strong as men, don't have as much endurance also don't normally make decisions the same way or as quickly. We think very differently than men. There is also NO way they are going to get rid of the aspect of sexual distractions and involvements between men and women in close quarters or men's natural instinct to protect women more than protecting other men. That distraction can, has already and will in the future have severe consequences.

My opinion is that women in combat, unless they are in ALL women units, is a very stupid, purely politically motivated move and won't work well at all. My ex-military husband's reasons for thinking it's stupid are much simpler than mine. He says what many soldiers like to say: "you can't trust anyone who bleeds for 1 week a month and doesn't die".

[mosquito]

This will, of course be heralded as an advance for "women's rights", as it appears at least one poster here already believes.

Question. What do you think is likely to happen to female soldiers who are captured ?