Skip to main content

Leon Panetta has just lifted the ban against women in combat in the military services.

WASHINGTON — 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 Thursday 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 also 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 condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.

I think thats the last bar against women in the service. this will change combat for the US military.
as an old infantryman I wonder how its going to be implemented.  I guess this means women can be drafted and put in the infantry just like men. Good luck with that.

I see no real objection to this, I think it was inevitable. I think its just clearing out one of the last hurdles in the military.

Good luck to all the women and men that serve.

Poll

Is this good for wwomen?

61%22 votes
22%8 votes
11%4 votes
5%2 votes

| 36 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If everyone is held to the same standards (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exlrrp

    of fitness and strength, why not?

    Devil's advocate:  imagine all the soldiers, pilots and sailors on D-Day in 1944 were women, trained the same as the men were.  Would we have won WWII?

  •  Women meet mandatory national service (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, exlrrp, irishwitch

    requirements in other countries, so why not here?  Of course if the rightwing has its way and there is no contraception available, avoiding service would be easy as pg (old term for preggers).

    Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

    by judyms9 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:01:04 PM PST

  •  Hey 100% on poll say it's good for women! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exlrrp, starfu, chimene

    (but I am the only one who voted lol). Thanks for posting this. It will be a good thing to discuss and certainly to have people know about.

    The main complaints I've heard about allowing women in combat roles are 1) Having women would disrupt unit cohesiveness 2) women are not physically as strong as men-couldn't lift and carry a comrade to safety, and in some cases the armed services have relaxed physical standards to let women in and this is dangerous (I don't know if they have relaxed standards for women or not.)

    Seems to me that the argument about unit cohesiveness is pretty much been proven wrong. Men have gotten used to having women around in many more roles than before over the last decade, and implementation of the end of DADT went way more smoothly with the troops than they thought it would (there was a unit cohesiveness arguement against ending DADT as well). Seems like the troops will take this in stride as long as they are abundantly clear that for combat positions women meet the same physical tests as men. Probably they will have to make that VERY LOUD and Very clear to combat troops that the women with them can physically do the job.
    There are extraordinary gifted women who are as strong as men. I have a friend who's 5 ft 8 and NOT athletic. She happens to be obese since childhood in fact but she is reasonably fit anyway (would walk a mile for excersize and doesn't walk slow). For some genetic reason she is as strong as a man. She can lift and carry my 25" (not flat screen) TV out of a car and up two flights of stairs. I can barely budge it as a woman of average to above avg strength. She could lift and carry half a sofa with a very strong x Navy Seal on the other end and he felt that she was carrying a good half the weight.
    These women do exist. Now if my friend were to bo work out? She could have easily done the physical stuff that a man can do in combat. I am sure even now she could sling a 180 lb man over her shoulders and carry him to safety..
    This is my pre-argument because usually the argument is that women cannot do these physical things. Some can. Most probably can't. But they should be allowed to try not prevented by law from not trying.

  •  It's about time since there already are (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exlrrp, Aunt Pat, Gordon20024, irishwitch

    women in combat:

    http://www.pbs.org/...

    This will put women already serving in combat on an equal footing with men.

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:07:41 PM PST

  •  Wish that we could ban men and women from combat (10+ / 0-)

    wouldn't that be something!  

    < /end Utopian pacifist fantasy>

  •  I don't think combat is good for women (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, Ref, Bronx59, starfu, gffish, marsanges

    But i don't think its good for men either

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:10:37 PM PST

  •  There are a lot of combat situations (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exlrrp

    in which there is absolutely no personal privacy for hours, days, or even weeks.  Women will have to get used to urinating, defecating, and taking care of other hygiene matters in full view of everyone in their unit.  On the plus side, this will tend to remove any trace of romance or eroticism for the duration.

    •  Oh I don't know about that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, alain2112

      A lot of married and living together folks see each other in all kinds of personal situations and still have sex.
      When young men and young women get together, you can count on sex rearing its head fairly soon, in whatever circumstances.
      Brothels do big business in war zones

      youre right about the public view, when I was in the 101st on stand down our shower would be a jerrycan of water dumped over the top of our heads, soap down and dumped the rest over our heads. this is done right in front of everyone.  This went on like this for months.
      You have to crap and pee side by side for a long time, most of the time.

      still and all, I can see these being gotten over.

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:28:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now women can kill people in other lands to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exlrrp, badger, Cartoon Peril

    support the oligarchy's imperialist wars of aggression.  Ya, that sounds real good doesn't it.  Equal opportunity ain't what it used to be.

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:34:43 PM PST

  •  Voted "other" because it's fine with me, but I (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bronx59, exlrrp, SpecialKinFlag, marsanges

    wish we could turn the emphasis more towards peacetime pursuits.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:16:41 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site