Pentagon to move ‘expeditiously’ to lift ban on women in combat roles

[Guest anonone]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-to-move-expeditiously-to-lift-ban-on-women-in-combat-roles/2013/01/24/f9fd6244-665d-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html

 

 

The Pentagon will move “expeditiously” to integrate women into the military’s combat units, Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta vowed Thursday, arguing that the inclusion of female troops would make the country and its fighting force stronger.

 

The new policy replaces a 1994 ban on allowing women to serve in ground combat roles. The change is the product of a decades-long debate that shifted dramatically as women served with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars with no clear front lines.

 

Going to be interesting to see how this plays out. My understanding is that the "ban" is lifted, but each of the armed services will need to come up with a way to implement. 

 

I am sure that many will also be asking how this will affect selective service requirments (The USA version of creating a potential draft list) as well as any possible future drafti into compulsary military service. 

 

Are all women going to be signed up for the draft? 

 

President Obama continues to press with his progressive policies. 

[TotallyOz]

I am not sure how I feel about this either but I am glad that the women that want get to do this.

 

Hasn't the Israeli army allowed women in combat for many years?

[Bob]

There's no reason to exclude anybody from any job as long as they have the skills for it.  Women soldiers have died in the wars and also have won combat medals.  One of the joint chiefs said he began to change his mind when he was being transported in a very hostile war zone in Iraq.  He said he slapped the driver on the knee and said something to the effect of: "Where are you from, son?"  The soldier answered: "I'm Amanda and....." 

 

Edit:  Just wanted to correct something.  Amanda wasn't the driver in the humvee transporting the general, she was its turret gunner!

[Guest anonone]

Agreed, I am all for including anyone, including females, who wish to take on the role and have the necessary skills for it.  During the press conference, it was stressed that there is to be no lowering of the standards used to determine if someone has the ability to serve in combat. 

 

My curiousity lies on the other side of the coin...those that do not WANT to serve in combat.  If a male enlists in the US Armed Forces, he does not get to choose what function he is assigned.  He can submit a preference for a certain role, but in the end, he takes on what they want him to do.

 

I am curiuos if the same will be true for a female that enlists, but does not want to be in a combat role.  Will she be forced to serve in that role, just like a man would?  And I mentioned above, how does this impact the selective service / draft issue?

 

I really don't know how I feel about it, but interesting to hear the comments and debates.  We certainly live in a changing social enviroment. 

[Guest timmberty]

yes i can imagine it now ... the tanks are needed to hurry into battle, vera and lilly will stand in front of it hands aloft ... you cant take that out of the camp in that condition .. we need to give it a golly good clean before its seen in public...