Spokane7
68°
February 9, 2012 in Nation/World
Pentagon rules shift on women in combat
WASHINGTON — Pentagon rules are catching up a bit with reality after a decade when women in the U.S. military have served, fought and died on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today, the Pentagon is recommending to Congress that women be allowed to serve in more jobs closer to the front lines. The change would open up about 14,000 additional jobs to women.
According to defense officials, the new rules are expected to continue the long-held prohibition that prevents women from serving as infantry, armor and special operations forces. But they will formally allow women to serve in other jobs at the battalion level, which until now had been considered too close to combat.
In reality, however, the necessities of war have already propelled women to the front lines — often as medics, military police or intelligence officers. So, while a woman couldn’t be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion or in a company going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
The officials said the new rules will formally allow women to be assigned to a battalion and serve in jobs such as medics, intelligence officers, police or communications officers. The changes would have the greatest effect on the Army and Marine Corps, which ban women from more jobs than the Navy and Air Force do, largely because of the infantry positions.
Defense officials spoke about the report on condition of anonymity because it had not yet been publicly released.
Though numbers vary by service branch, women make up more than 14 percent of the nation’s armed forces — that’s 200,000 women in the active duty force of 1.43 million. There long has been opposition to putting them in combat, based on questions of whether women have the necessary strength and stamina, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion. There also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women coming home from war in body bags.
But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where battlefield lines are scattered and blurred, and insurgents can be around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat. Some 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars, roughly 12 percent of all those who have served there. Of the more than 6,300 who have been killed, 144 were women.
Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, speaking from his home in Virginia, said he doesn’t see how the new policy helps the national security of the country.
“This does not dismiss the sexual tension issues, nor does it dismiss the differences physiologically between men and women in terms of cardiovascular fitness,” Maginnis said.
The Service Women’s Action Network’s response was mixed.
“On the plus side, this is a huge step in the right direction,” said Anu Bhagwati, former Marine Corps captain and executive director of the network. However, she said it was “extremely disappointing” that the ban would continue on women becoming infantry.
“To continue such a ban is to ignore the talents and leadership that women bring to the military, and it further penalizes servicewomen by denying them the opportunity for future promotions and assignments that are primarily given to personnel from combat arms specialties.”
“It’s time military leadership establish the same level playing field to qualified women to enter the infantry, special forces and other all-male units,” Bhagwati said.
The Pentagon report, which initially was due out last spring, comes nearly a year after an independent panel called for the military to lift its ban on women in combat. The Military Leadership Diversity Commission said the Pentagon should phase in additional career fields and units that women could be assigned to as long as they are qualified.
A 1994 combat exclusion policy bans women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops and is made up of battalions, which can be about 800 soldiers.
So while a woman serving as a communications or intelligence officer can be formally assigned to a brigade, she can’t be assigned to the smaller battalion. The military has gotten around those rules by “attaching” women in those jobs to battalions, which meant they could do the work but not get the credit for being in combat arms.
And since service in combat gives troops an advantage for promotions and job opportunities, it has been more difficult for women to move to the higher ranks.
While the new rules won’t open up the Navy SEALs or the Army Delta Force to women, some defense officials have said the military may eventually be open to that. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told North Carolina ROTC students in 2010 that at some point there would be careful steps in that direction.
Already, however, women are serving with special operations forces in support jobs such as intelligence analysts, legal specialists, builders and administration assistants.
In a new program gaining popularity in Afghanistan, women are serving on so-called cultural support teams that go out with commando units. The women on the teams are used to do things that would be awkward or impossible for their male teammates, such as talking to or frisking burqa-clad women.
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
ericdx on February 09 at 8:50 a.m.
“It’s time military leadership establish the same level playing field to qualified women to enter the infantry, special forces and other all-male units,” Bhagwati said.
Ok, Capt. Bhagwati, you can have your equality. As soon as women are required to register for selective serves, same as men, and as soon as there is not a different PT standard for women then men, you can be equal. Until then, you ask for equal opportunity, without having to meet the same criteria as a man, so you want the privilidge of competing for the higher ranks that are dominated by men in fields women are not able to enter, but you dont want to have to meet the same criteria the men have to. In other words, you want preferential treatment.
And to clarify, I served in the military for 20 years. I served during 2 wars. I was forward deployed for one of those wars (I was in training during the other one.) I have no issue with women in the military, and I even have no issue with them being able to serve in the same fields as men, but ONLY if they have to meet the EXACT SAME GUIDELINES as the men. For those of you that have questions, here is the Army version of the charts.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm
Notice for 17 - 21 year old males, 71 push ups is a score of 100, and 42 push ups is the lowest possible passing score. For women, 100 push ups is a score of 100. So in other words, a woman who performs this part of the test to a perfect score, is only doing as much as the lowest possible male score to pass. Enjoy the data. The other services have the same differences. Run times, Sit up reps, and push up reps are different for each sex.
Equality means being equal. It might just be my view from left field, but these dont seem all tht equal, and as soon as someone makes the statement that the bodies of men and women are different, and should have different standards, (and many women in the military, when asked that question, make that statement) then you justify limiting what jobs they can hold, because they claim that their bodies cant do the same things as men.
You cant have it both ways. Either have one standard for all, or quit whining about not being able to do all the same things, and keep the standards the way they are. The fact is, politicians (and some of them are in the uniforms of senior officers) made these rules to make people feel good about themselves.
Local on February 09 at 9:10 a.m.
Well said Ericdx. Equal should mean equal. If a woman only has to bring 59% (42 push ups vs 71) of that of a man I hope the enemy will understand that and only bring 59% effort against her and her co-workers back she is trying to protect.
mpwuzhere on February 09 at 9:38 a.m.
I agree with the standards…they do have to be the same across the board.
But I will also add that segregation/modesty between men and women would have to come to an end.
Take a look at the movies, for instance Starship Troopers, they share the same showers, same bunkhouses, and serve side by side from basic to war…it would have to be something like that for all positions to open up to women.
SugarShane on February 09 at 9:39 a.m.
ericdx mentioned the exact same thing I was going to mention. I would add that females also do not do regulation push ups, but push while on their knees. When I was in basic and AIT women that fell out on runs and PT were coddled, like “they can’t handle it because they are women, let’s go easy on them”. I also have zero problems with females in the military but like eric said if you want equality then how about actually being equal? Until things are like starship troopers and you get zero preferential treatment, you are just another chick on the battlefield that doesn’t belong. Keep em in the rear with the gear or get more Jessica Lynch capture and rape stories, not a tough choice for this guy.
SugarShane on February 09 at 9:40 a.m.
@mp ha! you beat me to it while I was typing, lol
RedCedar on February 09 at 10:00 a.m.
Good comments all around. We seem to be struggling to combine the politically correct notion that women are equal to men in every way with the biological reality that men are on the average stronger, more aggressive, and basically better fighters than women.
What’s next, a Geneva Convention that says that everybody who wants to go to war has to use a fully gender-integrated army, and that using nothing but strong men for the fighting is diplomatically equivalent to using poison gas? I can see it now: The fighting begins and the commander of the integrated side cries out “No fair! You don’t have any girls on your side!”
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 09 at 10:22 a.m.
You know other countries….some that are fighting right along side of us in Afghanistan and Iraq….have women fighting on the front line and preforming the same functions that only the men do in the US military, you know, just like they had openly gay soldiers fighting along the front lines with no issues before the United States joined the rest of the world.
Why is this acceptable for other countries yet its unacceptable for the United States?
And to people saying women are not physical enough, thats probably true, but doesn’t mean ALL women can’t, just like there are also MANY men who are not physical enough to do this job, that doesn’t mean ALL men cannot do it.
Local on February 09 at 11:10 a.m.
To have the best military in the world you have to bring your best. Not a subsidized politically correct version.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 11:28 a.m.
I’m going to have to go with those who have said you have to take into account the simple facts of the real world. If a woman can demonstrate the same physical aptitudes as her male counterpart, I see no other reason to deny her the same opportunities.
I knew several females in my last Navy command who could do the job - including the physical parts - every bit as well as their male counterparts. (And no, they weren’t terribly ‘butch’, unattractive… well, you know the stereotype. One of them was frankly quite the babe.)
And to Local I would say, define ‘your best’. You might want to ask the Germans who fought in Stalingrad their opinion of some of the ‘best’ snipers the Soviets brought - the ones who made the Germans lives a living hell.
Quite a few of them were female.
“Best” is a relative term.
Local on February 09 at 11:32 a.m.
Best is not relative. Set the standard if you pass you’re in. I don’t care if you’re black, white, gay, hetro, female, male. Here is the bar for excellence go get it.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 11:53 a.m.
Local,
As I said, with respect to tangible, measurable assets like physical strength and endurance or mental aptitude, if true equality is based on one standard for all, then I also have no problem.
Local on February 09 at 11:59 a.m.
Then why do women have different standards then men?
combat_injuneer on February 09 at 1:12 p.m.
I like and agree with a lot of the comments, but as a former drill sergeant at Ft. Jackson, SC and a current senior NCO, female Soldiers are not allowed to push on their knees. I’ve been in for 17 1/2 years and have never seen a female Soldier have pushups counted - during an Army Physical Fitness Test. However, I’ve seen male and female Soldiers push on their knees during “normal” PT sessions who’ve reached muscle failure, in order to continue pushing, because, well, some pushing is better than none, and there is continued resistance and it does help. But, I’ve never and my fellow NCOs have never, and will never count a pushup that isn’t a standard pushup. If it’s not good, it doesn’t count.
greenlibertarian on February 09 at 4:04 p.m.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119173/quotes
johnclarke on February 09 at 4:10 p.m.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 09 at 10:22 a.m.
Why is this acceptable for other countries yet its unacceptable for the United States?
Eh,probably a couple reasons. First - probably male ego that still needs to come around. Second - need. This country does not NEED women to fill certain kinds of military positions. Many countries need the bodies.
I can tell you from serving beside women in some of the harshest and non private conditions in any branch (SERE) they can hold their own and they earned my respect. There was one gal who walked a bunch of us into the dirt. She’s still in, went officer and made Major I think. When you have a year long training class that graduates less than 20% and women are among them - then there is your answer. They make fabulous pilots to name one career - some ended up as POW’s in Iraq and the world did not end. Anyway. huzzah for the ladies.
woamike on February 09 at 6:43 p.m.
“They make fabulous pilots to name one career”
Is that so?
Well, if “fabulous” is your standard, a FEW of them are. Most are utterly average and (too) many of them are weak. I have direct, personal experience in this area and know of what I speak. I have known several, that if they would have been dudes, would have been summarily shown the door. Instead, they got tons of extra training and “lenience” so they could make it through.
Yes, the military has become very PC.
johnclarke on February 09 at 8:16 p.m.
woamike on February 09 at 6:43 p.m
Well, if “fabulous” is your standard, a FEW of them are. Most are utterly average and (too) many of them are weak.
Yeah, well I used to train USAF and Navy pilots for a living. You might want to step off your imaginary horse and perhaps go talk to the Army ground pounders that have their asses saved by a female A-10 pilot.
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/KCpilot.html
Here is an article about a female pilot that practically had her Hawg shot from under her, and she flew it home on stick and rudder. That is a 12 ton aircraft numbnuts. What is your “direct experience” if you don’t mind sharing hero.
I can tell you my personal experience, I got my 20 year old self hoisted out of the Colville National Forest with a broken student in shock strapped to me. The UH-1N driver was a woman, and she knew her business.
woamike on February 09 at 9:06 p.m.
JC,
Get your SERE panties out of a wad. Yah, I know you trained pilots - to camp, play hide and seek, eat rabbits and play POW. I went to your school too. I trained pilots to FLY. That’s my “imaginary” horse (that I wasn’t on in the first place).
I didn’t say there aren’t great lady pilots out there and so stated in my earlier post that you took offense to. I merely disputed your contention that “they” make “fabulous” pilots. That’s a pretty broad brush and one that is OVERLY generous and reeks of PC.
Signed,
Your “numbnuts” “hero” who currently flys a 437.5 ton aircraft.
P.S. How DO you fly a plane, 12 ton or otherwise, BESIDE using stick and rudder?? Mental telepathy?
johnclarke on February 09 at 9:36 p.m.
Heh. You sound like someone that did not fare too well at the school Mr.747 pilot (assuming you are telling the truth). See, I’m sort of doubting you- because a pilot would know that the A-10 has redundant controls aka “stick and rudder” that are cable operated requiring upper body strength.
That’s ok. If you were an AF pilot, I’m sure we got the truth out of you with minimal effort. Thing is, you apparently you never got over it. I’m sure the dreams will stop eventually. All that A to B flying must be as exciting as combat.
ericdx on February 09 at 9:46 p.m.
JC,
I have served with women who could do the job, and those that could not, and those who could not often either used their feminine wiles to get through, or were a nightmare to deal with.
I will also admit, there are good female pilots out there, but I also remember the first woman to be allowed into the F-14 pipeline in the Navy, and the fact that she rode the fire right into the ocean just aft of the fantail of the USS Abraham Lincoln. It came out several years later that her and several other female pilots were passed through the system in response to political pressure (they had been marked to be dropped, and the big boys blocked it. (Of course this came out after all of them had left the military, and thank God none of them every killed anyone.). I was on the other carrier in that port at the time (the USS Carl Vinson) and remember seeing the Lincoln coming in with blackened metal on the fantail she crashed close enough to the carrier that the heat damaged the paint. She froze, she violated proceedures, and the killed herself, and almost killed several other people (there are 4 or 5 people that have to stand back in that area during flight ops. They all bailed out behind fittings when they saw she had lost it.) The official report that was released claimed mechanical error, but the report that stayed classified said pilot error. The RIO (who got out) was very experienced, and waited until the very last second, because it should have been the pilot calling for eject, but she froze. He tried to punch them out, but the time delay between his seat and hers was enough that she was fired into the water, while he was fired out just above parallel to the water. He was so close that he only had time for his chute to deploy and make 1 swing before he was in the water.
There are militarys that have women serve side by side with men, but I would be willing to bet that they make sure the women can handle the job, our military does not. As a retired NCO, I know EXACLY how far your @$$ can get in the sling if you try to remove a female from a position she is not fit for. Frankly, it is easier to impeach the President, because everybodys political fanny is in the fire, and most officers now a days don’t have the big hairy ones needed to make the tough calls, because they are looking to their promotions, not their people. That leaves the actual doers (the enlisted usually, but sometimes Junior Officers also get splattered with this excrement) holding the bag, and having to suck it up.
Sorry, i stick by my first post. Until the standards are equal in ALL ways, I can’t look at a woman as a true equal. That means PT standards, and the draft. My son has to register, my daughters should have to as well.
johnclarke on February 09 at 9:58 p.m.
“As a retired NCO”…
You went from NCO to 747 pilot?
ericdx on February 09 at 10:03 p.m.
JC,
Woamlike is the one claiming to be a 747 jock. I have never claimed to be anything but a proud retired enlisted man, of the NCO ranks. You are suffering from confusion of people here.
And just to show there is evidence about the issue of political correcness and pilot training, even though it is about 17 year old, here is a report about a couple of female pilots, that heavily uses the statement of double standards and lowering requirements due to gender and political pressure. I also stand again by my statement that equal means equal, not 2 different standards.
http://www.cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/87mr11cmrrpt09j95.pdf
woamike on February 09 at 10:10 p.m.
JC,
Please continue to regale us with your “knowledge” of aviation and “stick and rudder”. It’s quite entertaining. Perhaps you should stick to teaching girls how to put the thump on cute bunnies. . .
BTW, do you make it a habit of insulting AF pilots? At least the men?
Ericdx,
Standy for JC or some other apologist to come back with how it wasn’t Kara’s fault she bought the farm that day. They’ll even present you “evidence” that the Navy’s best pilots couldn’t recover from the “same” situation in a simulator. It’s all pure, unadulterated PC BS.
Yes, she was the first female F-14 pilot and there was NO WAY in hell that mishap was going to be blamed on her. The PC crowd had WAY too much invested in the whole thing to let that happen. The Navy spent millions of dollars to come up with a “plausible” scenario to absolve her of Pilot Error.
I have nothing against her and feel immensely for her family’s loss. Every mishap that leads to loss of life is a tragedy, regardless of who or what was to blame. The blame for this rests squarely with the Navy and everyone who “helped” her get through the program. That’s my opinion. . .
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Starfighter/840/