Will Allowing Women In Combat Roles Revolutionize Military Leadership?

[Horn]

Inflame again the intelligents...


Multiple news outlets report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-to-remove-ban-on-women-in-combat/2013/01/23/6cba86f6-659e-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html) that outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has decided to allow women to serve in military combat roles, reversing a 1994 policy that excluded women from serving in combat units. The official announcement is expected on Thursday.

Women currently make up more than 14% of the 1.4 million active military personnel but were not allowed to serve in over 230,000 combat positions, despite that they have increasingly served at the front lines. More than 800 women were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, where at least 130 have died, reports (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/) CNN.

“I am thrilled to hear the Secretary is taking a huge step towards having the policy reflect women’s hard-fought service,” says Ariela Migdal, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “For the past 10 years women have been slogging it out in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s a great step to conform the policy to reality.”
“This puts women at every level of the military,” says Greg Jacob, policy director at the Service Women’s Action Network. “It ensures you have the best person in leadership positions regardless of their sex. If the best sniper is a woman, it should be her in the role.”

The Department of Defense will begin assessing the current physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations across departments. Not every combat role will necessarily be open to women. However, Sec. Panetta has set a clear timeline, asking for regular feedback and that all exemption applications be filed by January 2016.

“Implementation is key,” says Jacob. “Particularly now that Sec. Panetta is transitioning out of the role, we’ll be keeping an eye on it as it progresses.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2013/01/23/will-allowing-women-in-combat-roles-revolutionize-military-leadership/

[Glass]

My first impression is, is all that it takes is for this guy to decide? Nothing else required?

Seems pretty straight forward. I see every war ending in a hug or maybe counselling.

[EE_]

Women are the new warriors!

This is just all fucking disturbing!

[Twisted Titan]

I dont know what the big deal is Russia had Female soliders for the longest time.

I think they even had 2 woman sniper groups that were absolutely deadly.

[Norweger]

Leon Panetta needs more cannon fodder for Israel.

[Glass]

I dont know what the big deal is Russia had Female soliders for the longest time.

I think they even had 2 woman sniper groups that were absolutely deadly.

yes women are good shooters. I see this at my clubs. I tell people this every chance I get. If someone is a bit taken back finding an evil shooter in their midst I make a point of it. Try to get the ladies thinking about maybe trying it.

[Santa]

When I was little I was taught that women were naturally kinder and more nurturing than men and if they were in the Military there would be no more war.

Phhhhtttt!!!!! Wake the fuck up, Jack!!!!!

[Horn]

I don't know if I've been engineered to somehow despise any enemy that would field a woman, or I just like them too much?

Coming directly after gun legislation issues, seems rigged.

[ShortJohnSilver]

Which statement is true?

1. The purpose of the military has been reduced to providing employment and keeping armed young people out of the country, or otherwise sated enough to not rebel against the current corrupt system.

2. Or, the military is not getting enough men into their ranks, and so they are lowering their standards.

[JDRock]

Well sweetheart....you followed gloria steinem because she told you you needed to be EQUAL.....well this is the logical result of jewish propaganda....enjoy your "equality"

[Santa]

Well sweetheart....you followed gloria steinem because she told you you needed to be EQUAL.....well this is the logical result of jewish propaganda....enjoy your "equality"

It wasn't just Gloria Steinem, or even the Media.... it was the entire Public Education System. If you don't want your son to grow up into a little jooboo,
you have to keep them out of public schools entirely.

[sirgonzo420]

It wasn't just Gloria Steinem, or even the Media.... it was the entire Public Education System. If you don't want your son to grow up into a little jooboo,
you have to keep them out of public schools entirely.

Heaven forbid parents raise their own damn children.

[JDRock]

i agree but there is ALWAYS a source.....a fountainhead backed by the jewsmedia to promote the propaganda....public schools were FINE in the early 1900's.....what CHANGED them into a wellspring of jewish propaganda?? I say...JEWS.

[jimswift]

Heaven forbid parents raise their own damn children.

Was just thinking about this.

There is a beautiful lady down at the local bank, just had a baby no more than a month, month & half ago. She is already back to work.

I was thinking, that is crazy, this woman JUST had a newborn and she is already separated from it.

[Neuro]

Was just thinking about this.

There is a beautiful lady down at the local bank, just had a baby no more than a month, month & half ago. She is already back to work.

I was thinking, that is crazy, this woman JUST had a newborn and she is already separated from it.
Maybe the baby was killed by a vaccine?
http://www.naturalnews.com/038812_vaccines_childhood_deaths_toxic_chemicals.h tml

[Horn]

Much official anonymity, or Reuters is actually the shadow Government.

No input required.


Pentagon lifts U.S. ban on women in combat

(Reuters) - The Pentagon lifted its ban on women in front-line combat roles on Thursday in a historic step toward gender equality in U.S. armed forces after 11 years of nonstop war.

The decision came with important caveats, and sweeping change will not happen overnight for women, nearly 300,000 of whom have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.reuters.com/places/afghanistan) since 2001.

But the move by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, with the support of President Barack Obama, could open 237,000 positions to women in America's armed forces and an expand opportunities for career advancement.

"The department's goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender," Panetta said in a statement.

A senior defense official said Panetta's goal "is to open everything" to women. Service chiefs will have to ask for exceptions to keep some positions closed.

Panetta, who is to address a Pentagon news conference on Thursday, made the decision after the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded it was time to integrate women "to the maximum extent possible," according to a statement.
Gender-neutral performance standards will be developed for all the new jobs opening to women, officials said. But whether that means the physical requirements become more or less rigorous remains to be seen, they added, cautioning that they would depend on the actual demands of the position.

An example of a physically demanding job that may be out of reach of women without significant upper body strength could be in front-line tanks, where soldiers need to lift and load heavy ammunition in confined spaces using mainly their arms.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the changes would be gradual. The service chiefs have until May 15 to offer plans to implement the new policy by January 1, 2016.

"The secretary understands with a change of this magnitude it does take some time," the official said.
The move topples another societal barrier in the U.S. armed forces, after the Pentagon in 2011 scrapped its "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a suit in November seeking to force the Pentagon to end the ban on women in combat, applauded the decision, which rescinds a 1994 policy preventing women from serving in small front-line combat units.
For many women service members, the move is belated acknowledgement of the realities of the past decade of war, in which there were often no clearly defined front lines. Eighty-four women have been killed in hostile action in Iraq and Afghanistan and nearly 1,000 wounded.

Women serve in combat roles for the armed forces of a few developed nations, including Canada and Israel, but officials say demand from women for such jobs in NATO nations is very low. In 2010, Britain decided after a review that it would not change rules excluding women from infantry or combat teams.

"I feel like it's beyond time," said Staff Sergeant Tiffany Evans, a soldier stationed at Fort Hood, Texas.
The United States is drawing down its some 66,000 remaining forces from Afghanistan through the end of 2014, when only a small residual force is expected to remain. It is possible that some women may see themselves in new combat roles before that withdrawal is complete.

"I don't think we can exclude that possibility," one senior defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/us-usa-military-women-pentagon-idUSBRE90N0SI20130124

[mamboni]

Which statement is true?

1. The purpose of the military has been reduced to providing employment and keeping armed young people out of the country, or otherwise sated enough to not rebel against the current corrupt system.

2. Or, the military is not getting enough men into their ranks, and so they are lowering their standards.

You omitted choice 3

3. All of the above

[EE_]

Rethinking this, I retract my earlier statement and agree women should go into battle.

There could be a seperate kill force unit of women that only go into battle one week a month called the "Paramilitary Mobilization Squadron", or "PMS" unit for short.

Other female units will include, the "Sabotage Network Assult Tactical Campaign Hub" or "SNATCH" unit, to conduct "Termination Assignments", or "T's & A's"

Yes, I think this will work out just fine.

[Sparky]

I don't see why this has to be so complicated. Both the marines and army have a "combat ready" physical test that they must pass. If a female wants to be in combat and she can pass the unmodified (for gender) test, then have at it.

All this discussion about women not having the same upper body strength or endurance is irrelevant. The test will determine that on an individual basis.

The only problem arises if:

1) The test requirements are made easier for women.
2) Someone can't live with the fact that the number of women who qualify for combat will be a small fraction of the men that will qualify.

[Dogman]

Rethinking this, I retract my earlier statement and agree women should go into battle.

There could be a seperate kill force unit of women that only go into battle one week a month called the "Paramilitary Mobilization Squadron", or "PMS" unit for short.

Other female units will include, the "Sabotage Network Assult Tactical Campaign Hub" or "SNATCH" unit, to conduct "Termination Assignments", or "T's & A's"

Yes, I think this will work out just fine.

Add to that these requirements also.

Not married.

No kids.

[mamboni]

Rethinking this, I retract my earlier statement and agree women should go into battle.

There could be a seperate kill force unit of women that only go into battle one week a month called the "Paramilitary Mobilization Squadron", or "PMS" unit for short.

Other female units will include, the "Sabotage Network Assult Tactical Campaign Hub" or "SNATCH" unit, to conduct "Termination Assignments", or "T's & A's"

Yes, I think this will work out just fine.

An all female elite unit, feared by adversaries the world over, is known as P.U.S.S.Y.*

P.U.S.S.Y.- Paramilitary Unit Specializing in Sabotaging You

[EE_]

Here's a FedEx commercial that's out right now...

Questions
1. Who would you rather go to war with?
2. Who has the furry little pink vagina?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNrz8h6dtS8

[madfranks]

It's obvious to me that women shouldn't be in combat because the natural instinct of a man is to protect a woman in distress. If a unit of 10 soldiers falls under attack, and one of them is a woman, most of those guys are going to be distracted over concerns to keep her safe or make sure she doesn't get her head blown free.

[Cebu_4_2]

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey formally signed a memo on Jan. 24, 2013, to rescind a 1994 military ban on women serving in combat. The move opens hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war. The decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women. -AP (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/panetta-opens-combat-roles-women)

[steyr_m]

I dont know what the big deal is Russia had Female soliders for the longest time.

Desperate situations call for desperate measures. True, they were good snipers, but their bodies cannot stand the rigours of combat. I recently read an article by a female in a combat role and regretted it because she just couldn't keep up and her body took the toll.....

[Sparky]

It's obvious to me that women shouldn't be in combat because the natural instinct of a man is to protect a woman in distress. If a unit of 10 soldiers falls under attack, and one of them is a woman, most of those guys are going to be distracted over concerns to keep her safe or make sure she doesn't get her head blown free.
Soldiers are trained to act against any natural instincts that interfere with their safety or performance. I think they would show the same compassion and fierce loyalty that they already show within their all-male platoons.

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i47.tinypic.com/dev03d.jpg

How would women bathe in the field?


http://i49.tinypic.com/20kvp6p.jpg


Or pose for a group shot?

[Neuro]

http://i47.tinypic.com/dev03d.jpg

How would women bathe in the field?


http://i49.tinypic.com/20kvp6p.jpg


Or pose for a group shot?
Oh I so wish I could post this photo here:
http://beretandboina.blogspot.com/2010/07/appropriate.html?m=1

Warning I would get banned for it so look at it only under supervision of adults children...

[EE_]

That's what I call superior weaponry. How do you even fight against something like that?

[Neuro]

That's what I call superior weaponry. How do you even fight against something like that?
You fall down, surrender, and thank the lord for getting to see this day...

[steyr_m]

Warning I would get banned for it so look at it only under supervision of adults children...

I personally like the nudity, and [or at least at GIM1] profanity ban. I'm bombarded with it all the time. At work, hanging out with friends, on TV, movies..... everywhere. This has been my sanctuary for adult-hood for a few years now.

[Neuro]

I personally like the nudity, and [or at least at GIM1] profanity ban. I'm bombarded with it all the time. At work, hanging out with friends, on TV, movies..... everywhere. This has been my sanctuary for adult-hood for a few years now.I do to, but I really REALLY wanted to post that particular picture, it is amazing!

[woodman]

I really don't regard women as the 'weaker sex'. There is abundant proof that they are well able to take care of themselves. They are not made for combat however.

[Horn]

I don't see why this has to be so complicated. Both the marines and army have a "combat ready" physical test that they must pass. If a female wants to be in combat and she can pass the unmodified (for gender) test, then have at it.

All this discussion about women not having the same upper body strength or endurance is irrelevant. The test will determine that on an individual basis.

The only problem arises if:

1) The test requirements are made easier for women.
2) Someone can't live with the fact that the number of women who qualify for combat will be a small fraction of the men that will qualify.

None of our opinions, or "notional equality tests" matter in our Free & Democratic society.

[chad]

do they have to register with selective service now?

[steyr_m]

I do to, but I really REALLY wanted to post that particular picture, it is amazing!

Yeah, I saw it.... some hot looking Slavic women [my heritage is Ukrainian]. That doesn't bother me, I have to follow a link to see it. It's just when it's everywhere.....

[EE_]

I personally like the nudity, and [or at least at GIM1] profanity ban. I'm bombarded with it all the time. At work, hanging out with friends, on TV, movies..... everywhere. This has been my sanctuary for adult-hood for a few years now.

Do I understand you are saying you like the nudity ban Mr. nude avatar penguin tits person?
Just sayin'

[SilverTop]

Women who have overly aggressive personality's will be a natural for combat. They are ruthless. Then too, when they turn the military on us they can recall all the emotion some dude put them through.

Can you gun down a female soldier? The oligarchs are counting on the fact that you won't.

[steyr_m]

Do I understand you are saying you like the nudity ban Mr. nude avatar penguin tits person?
Just sayin'

OK, got me there.... She's been with me for so long -- I forgot about her, It was the Tux that made me post it -- honestly.

[EE_]

I really don't regard women as the 'weaker sex'. There is abundant proof that they are well able to take care of themselves. They are not made for combat however.

Women are only weaker in regard to muscle mass. Women are the more powerful of our species in everything else.

The government doesn't share your view and definately sees women as the weakers sex. That's why so many laws and special rights were created to protect them and give them power over men.

Maybe sending them into battle is the governments step in the right direction to bring equality to all.

[steyr_m]

Women are only weaker in regard to muscle mass. Women are the more powerful of our species in everything else.

The government doesn't share your view and definately sees women as the weakers sex. That's why so many laws and special rights were created to protect them and give them power over men.

Maybe sending them into battle is the governments step in the right direction to bring equality to all.

I don't know if you read my post earlier, but women cannot handle the rigours of prolonged combat. I'm all about equality, but if equality makes other troops die because of physical weakness , they shouldn't be allowed.

Plus [if you've ever been to a construction site, you know what I mean], if a woman shows up to a unit -- the [I]whole dynamic changes.

[EE_]

I don't know if you read my post earlier, but women cannot handle the rigours of prolonged combat. I'm all about equality, but if equality makes other troops die because of physical weakness , they shouldn't be allowed.

Plus [if you've ever been to a construction site, you know what I mean], if a woman shows up to a unit -- the [I]whole dynamic changes.

I got ya on the riggers thing, but with todays technology and weaponry, maybe it's not such a big deal?

Yes, been to many construction sites and women are given special rights there too...with equal pay I might add.

If a man on a construction site says the wrong thing in front of, or to a women...she can have him hauled off in a moments notice. Not the other way around. Special rights again.

So we agree, men are stronger and women are more powerful then men.

[steyr_m]

I got ya on the riggers thing,

In Canada/UK/Aus/NZ -- rigours = rigors

Today's "technology and weaponry" isn't winning in Afghanistan [or Iraq, for that matter] against guys wearing flip-flops carrying SKS/AK's. It is a big deal.

I've been in the military since '87 and every physical evaluation the women have for the most part have come up last.

It's easy to say, when your life isn't on the line that it isn't a big deal.

[EE_]

In Canada/UK/Aus/NZ -- rigours = rigors

Today's "technology and weaponry" isn't winning in Afghanistan [or Iraq, for that matter] against guys wearing flip-flops carrying SKS/AK's. It is a big deal.

I've been in the military since '87 and every physical evaluation the women have for the most part have come up last.

It's easy to say, when your life isn't on the line that it isn't a big deal.

Are we supposed to be winning, or just keep perpetual war going? idk
As far as "rigours", women shouldn't have to carry, haul, or lift as much as a man...just like it is in construction, or any physical labor industry, with equal pay.
Special rights should apply in the military too.

You know I don't take all this shit serious, don't you?
I don't believe women should be in combat...unless it's with their husband, or significant other.