Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

    A Pentagon commission is recommending that ground combat units be open to female troops, arguing women are already engaged in combat and that keeping them out of operational career fields puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to promotion.

    The recommendation by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission has been expected since early January, when a draft version of the report was released. Opening combat arms to women was only one of 20 recommendations made by the commission. The report also presses for a military force that more closely reflects the country's demographics.

    Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, whose forces would see the most dramatic changes with women moving into combat jobs, did not comment on the recommendations.

    Retired Air Force Gen. Lester L. Lyles, who chaired the commission, said the women they interviewed -- all ranks from all branches -- were neither gung ho nor shy about the possibility of serving in combat units.

    "I didn't hear, 'Rah, rah, we want to be in combat,' " Lyles said, "but I also didn't hear, 'We don't want to be in combat.'

    "What they want is an equal opportunity to serve where their skills allow them to serve," he said in a DoD release. "Removing the barriers for that, and removing the barriers to them getting credit for that, was our No. 1 focus."

    The commission is recommending that the Pentagon implement new policies that assign women based on their qualifications to tactical units below the brigade level.

    "The commission is not advocating lowering of standards with the elimination of the combat exclusion policy," the final report states. "Qualification standards for combat arms positions should remain in place."

    The Pentagon instituted the so-called "combat exclusion policy" in 1994 that barred women from engaging "an enemy on the ground with weapons [or] have a high probability of direct physical contact with the personnel of a hostile force." The rule has had the effect of keeping females out of infantry, artillery and armored units since then.

    The commission found that the combat exclusion policies are most restrictive in the Army and Marine Corps, for which ground combat is the principal role. Based on 2003 data, the exclusion policies keep women out of 9 percent of Army occupations and 8 percent of Marine Corps occupations, compared to just 1 percent of Air Force jobs. While the '03 figures have 6 percent of Navy career fields closed to women, the commission speculates that has changed, since the Navy opened submarine service to women early last year.

    The importance of combat arms occupations in career advancement is reflected in the 2006 stats the commission referenced. While infantry, armor, artillery, cavalry and Special Forces make up just 7.7 percent of all Army career fields, 80 percent of Army general officers came from those occupations, according to the commission.

    Women represent about 15 percent of active-duty servicemembers and about 18 percent of reserve forces, according to the Pentagon. They also account already for about 10 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans, and 10 percent of all U.S. forces serving in the combat theater.

    In a statement, Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said officials "will thoroughly evaluate" the commission's recommendations as part of an ongoing review of diversity policies.

    Even without the combat military occupational specialties such as infantry and artillery, women have been in kinetic situations from the earliest days of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. From truck drivers and supply specialists to military police and security forces, female troops have directly engaged the enemy.

    In 2005, Army Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester became the first woman since World War II to earn a Silver Star. On duty in Iraq from the 617th Military Police Company of the Kentucky National Guard, she and her fellow Soldiers engaged the enemy during a convoy ambush March 2005. The MP squad flanked the insurgents to cut off their escape route, and Hester led her team through the fire and attacked the enemy trench line with rifles and M203 grenades. Before it was over, 27 insurgents were dead and six wounded.

    "It really doesn't have anything to do with being a female," she said in June 2005, when the medal was pinned on her. "It's about the duties I performed that day as a Soldier."

  • #2
    Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

    No comment.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

      LOL....The "tree huggers, libs, and so called commissions" always bring up Hester (MP) and Brown (Medic) when they kicked @zzed and excelled in a combat situation. However, ever SOLDIER, SAILOR, MARINE, and AIRMAN regardless of gender would do there job, and engage/repel an assaults when need too.

      Goes back to age old agrugments male vs female. Truly our society isn't up to seeing female soldiers being butchered in large scaled numbers in combat. Our norm is to protect, coddle, and lift up our women. Physcially a woman can't ruck 80-100 lbs while force marching 10-20 miles and engage (direct fire) with the enemy, or Man handle 155 rounds in Arty, or crew M1 Abram rounds....You'll hear arguments though; Big difference in captaining a ship, sub, or piloting an aircraft....

      Women in uniform do just fine in the roles their in now...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

        From Wikipedia on the Woman Army Corps

        General Douglas MacArthur called the WACs "my best soldiers", adding that they worked harder, complained less, and were better disciplined than men. Many generals wanted more of them and proposed to draft women but it was realised that this "would provoke considerable public outcry and Congressional opposition" and the War Department declined to take such a drastic step. Those 150,000 women that did serve released the equivalent of 7 divisions of men for combat. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower said that "their contributions in efficiency, skill, spirit, and determination are immeasurable".

        Also, their link
        http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/wac/wac.htm
        <sup></sup>
        <sup>No I do not go that far back but there were times of harmony and bliss with women that served. Also, they said that this will improve promotion opportunities. I call that argument moot basing it solely that combat arms promotion scores are lower due to higher attrition. Women have excelled in many MOSes that they serve with MEN because it was easier to attain a higher PT score thus getting more promotion points and perhaps favoritism on promotion boards.</sup>
        <sup></sup>
        <sup>Bottom line is that any group that feels discriminated will now have a platform to argue based on the repeal of DADT. They say that standards will not be compromised but lets wait and see.</sup>

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

          Will NOT happen in my lifetime. There is absolutely no advantage in doing so. I will gladly debate someone who thinks otherwise.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

            I will say that I am at least impressed that the new PT test will have the same standards for men and women.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

              Originally posted by RSP NCO View Post
              I will say that I am at least impressed that the new PT test will have the same standards for men and women.
              But with that being said the standards won't be released for a couple of months so it could mean that they could be a lower standard

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

                o13, it appears that your article was somehow linked to this one. Thoughts?

                http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/0...litary-030711/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

                  o13, it seems this article is linked to the navy times article on this headline.

                  Report: Too many whites, men leading military


                  I gave the link but a mod has to approve it.

                  By Pauline Jelinek - The Associated Press
                  Posted : Monday Mar 7, 2011 15:10:55 EST
                  <form id="hidden"><input id="headline" value="Report: Too many whites, men leading military" type="hidden"><input id="body" value="You have been sent an online news article as a courtesy of www.navytimes.com. To view the contents go to:" type="hidden"><input id="url" value="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-military-report-too-many-whites-men-leading-military-030711/" type="hidden"></form>WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.
                  Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.
                  One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.
                  The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.
                  Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, “despite undeniable successes ... the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.”
                  "This problem will only become more acute as the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of the United States continues to change,” said the report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, whose more than two dozen members included current and former military personnel as well as businessmen and other civilians.


                  Having military brass that better mirrors the nation can inspire future recruits and help create trust among the general population, the commission said.
                  Among recommendations is that the military eliminate policies that exclude women from combat units, phasing in additional career fields and units that they can 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 even though women have for years served in combat situations.
                  “If you look at today’s battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s not like it was in the Cold War, when we had a defined battlefield,” retired Air Force Gen. Lester L. Lyles, the commission’s chairman, said in an interview. “Women serve — and they lead — military security, military police units, air defense units, intelligence units, all of which have to be right there with combat veterans in order to do the job appropriately.”
                  Because they are technically attached to, but not assigned to, combat units, they don’t get credit for being in combat arms, something important for promotion to the most senior ranks.
                  Lyles said the commission consulted a panel of enlisted women on the issue. “I didn’t hear, ‘Rah, rah, we want to be in combat,’“ Lyles said. “But I also didn’t hear, ‘We don’t want to be in combat.’ What they want is an equal opportunity to serve where their skills allow them to serve.”
                  Stretching the definition of diversity, the report also said the military must harness people with a greater range of skills and backgrounds in, for instance, cyber systems, languages and cultural knowledge to be able to operate in an era of new threats and to collaborate with international partners and others.
                  Last edited by Chief Kemosabe; March 8th, 2011, 02:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

                    Originally posted by o13starsnstripes View Post
                    But with that being said the standards won't be released for a couple of months so it could mean that they could be a lower standard
                    I'm betting that this is the case.

                    Coincidentally I just amended an E-4 females orders so she can attend selection in Bragg about 5 minutes ago. I'm not even remotely joking when I say this. Now, this "selection" is only 12 days long so obviously it is not the SFAS that we know of. It is some kind of female only selection to be attached to a SFG. First time I have ever heard of it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

                      Originally posted by o13starsnstripes View Post
                      But with that being said the standards won't be released for a couple of months so it could mean that they could be a lower standard
                      For a heavier generaton.....just like that other thread I was advocating in that other thread....wow Chaplain4me.....you're too cool.

                      I think it's a great idea for females to be in combat arms.

                      True equality is a must. That will be the way it should have always been.

                      Soon we will have the first SF female green beret. HOOAH.

                      You see it's not fair for females not to get certain commands because that is discrimination.


                      Originally posted by SGT Juggernaut View Post
                      I'm betting that this is the case.

                      Coincidentally I just amended an E-4 females orders so she can attend selection in Bragg about 5 minutes ago. I'm not even remotely joking when I say this. Now, this "selection" is only 12 days long so obviously it is not the SFAS that we know of. It is some kind of female only selection to be attached to a SFG. First time I have ever heard of it.
                      I didn't even see your post before I posted my last thread.

                      Originally posted by fmcityslicker View Post
                      o13, it seems this article is linked to the navy times article on this headline.

                      Report: Too many whites, men leading military


                      I gave the link but a mod has to approve it.

                      By Pauline Jelinek - The Associated Press
                      Posted : Monday Mar 7, 2011 15:10:55 EST
                      <form id="hidden"><input id="headline" value="Report: Too many whites, men leading military" type="hidden"><input id="body" value="You have been sent an online news article as a courtesy of www.navytimes.com. To view the contents go to:" type="hidden"><input id="url" value="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-military-report-too-many-whites-men-leading-military-030711/" type="hidden"></form>WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.
                      Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.
                      One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.
                      The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.
                      Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, “despite undeniable successes ... the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.”
                      "This problem will only become more acute as the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of the United States continues to change,” said the report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, whose more than two dozen members included current and former military personnel as well as businessmen and other civilians.


                      Having military brass that better mirrors the nation can inspire future recruits and help create trust among the general population, the commission said.
                      Among recommendations is that the military eliminate policies that exclude women from combat units, phasing in additional career fields and units that they can 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 even though women have for years served in combat situations.
                      “If you look at today’s battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s not like it was in the Cold War, when we had a defined battlefield,” retired Air Force Gen. Lester L. Lyles, the commission’s chairman, said in an interview. “Women serve — and they lead — military security, military police units, air defense units, intelligence units, all of which have to be right there with combat veterans in order to do the job appropriately.”
                      Because they are technically attached to, but not assigned to, combat units, they don’t get credit for being in combat arms, something important for promotion to the most senior ranks.
                      Lyles said the commission consulted a panel of enlisted women on the issue. “I didn’t hear, ‘Rah, rah, we want to be in combat,’“ Lyles said. “But I also didn’t hear, ‘We don’t want to be in combat.’ What they want is an equal opportunity to serve where their skills allow them to serve.”
                      Stretching the definition of diversity, the report also said the military must harness people with a greater range of skills and backgrounds in, for instance, cyber systems, languages and cultural knowledge to be able to operate in an era of new threats and to collaborate with international partners and others.

                      Chaplains don't get combat oppurtunities, or combat credit either.

                      Originally posted by 7011USMC View Post
                      LOL....The "tree huggers, libs, and so called commissions" always bring up Hester (MP) and Brown (Medic) when they kicked @zzed and excelled in a combat situation. However, ever SOLDIER, SAILOR, MARINE, and AIRMAN regardless of gender would do there job, and engage/repel an assaults when need too.

                      Goes back to age old agrugments male vs female. Truly our society isn't up to seeing female soldiers being butchered in large scaled numbers in combat. Our norm is to protect, coddle, and lift up our women. Physcially a woman can't ruck 80-100 lbs while force marching 10-20 miles and engage (direct fire) with the enemy, or Man handle 155 rounds in Arty, or crew M1 Abram rounds....You'll hear arguments though; Big difference in captaining a ship, sub, or piloting an aircraft....

                      Women in uniform do just fine in the roles their in now...
                      Several times in history females have been right there with the males in combat. Think Viet Cong........

                      Of'course they used child soldiers as well.
                      Last edited by SteveLord; March 8th, 2011, 06:10 PM. Reason: Consolidated into 1 post.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

                        Contrary to popular belief for the most part the problem with women in direct combat has nothing to do with the women. It's the men that are the problem. You see people cannot change how the feel, or how they react. It's human nature. A man, no matter who you are, is programmed to protect a female. It's human insticnt when in a dangerous situation for a male to protect his female counter. This type of behavior is not conducive to combat operations. SSG Joe Snuffy who is an infantry squad leader may be on a mission deep in a hot zone, and when sh1t hits the fan, that one female on his team who is injured will become his priority. The mission will instantly become second in nature, and this just cannot happen.

                        Disclaimer: The next paragraph in no way shape or form is intended to downgrade or minimize anyones combat experience. I am merely pointing out differences in operations. I understand there is still danger, and I again am not taking anything away from any of you who have served in OIF OEF....

                        BUT, the people who say women are in combat anyway are highly mistaken. Yes, it is still dangerous in Iraq and Afghnaistan. But the statement President Bush made back in early 2003 that everyone mocks when he stated major combat operations are over, was TRUE. It was true in the nature to offensive combat operations. OEF and OIF are unlike any other combat enviroment we have seen. It is no longer a linear battlefield with the good guys on one side and the bad guys on other side. We are both everywhere. The stipulations that prevent women in direct combat were not designed in lieu of this modern war. It was designed based of the concepts of a linear battlefield and offensive movements. The real war, in terms of active combat ended once we started building bases in Iraq.

                        In March of 2002 I was on a major combat operations (Operation Anaconda) in which we were in the middle of the mountains in the middle of no where on an offensive movement (a linear battlefield). There were no women with us. This is an example of what direct combat is.

                        When these rules were made no one thought about IED's and how everyone would eventually be in equal danger regardless of MOS.

                        To change the current doctrine allowing women to serve in direct combat units (units that do offensive actions) would be a grave mistake should we have to invade another country on an offensive operation.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

                          ^^^^+65,000

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

                            It's really not about females in combat, it's about providing them the access to climb the ranks.

                            It's not fair that they don't have the same oppurtunities to advance as males too.

                            Females in combat MOS's will make us a stronger nation, and that's the way it should have been from the begining.

                            It will make us a stronger fighting force.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Panel Wants Women in Combat Arms

                              When was the last time you have taken a uranalysis??!!

                              It's really not about females in combat, it's about providing them the access to climb the ranks.

                              Sooo, our military focus should be centered around women getting faster promotions, and NOT about effectivly winning wars??!! Am I hearing you correctly??

                              It's not fair that they don't have the same oppurtunities to advance as males too.

                              It's not fair??!! WOW, it's the military, it's about selfless service. Not selfish service. And last time I checked we just promoted a four star female and both of the CSM's in my chain of command are female.

                              Females in combat MOS's will make us a stronger nation, and that's the way it should have been from the begining.

                              It will make us a stronger fighting force.

                              WHAT??!! By making our combat direct fighting units less combat effective we will become stronger??

                              This is real life. I know all of our parents told us we could be whatever we wanted if we put our mind to it, but I'm sorry, it's just not true.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X