Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

[IA]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will lift a longstanding ban on women serving in combat, according to senior defense officials.
The services have until this May to come up with a plan to implement the change, according to a Defense Department official.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/23/pentagon-to-allow-women-in-front-line-combat-by-2016/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/women-combat-defense-secretary-leon-panetta-lifts-pentagon/story?id=18295570

Quick points.
Panetta's decision will set a January 2016 deadline for the military service branches to argue that there are military roles that should remain closed to women.

In February 2012 the Defense Department opened up 14,500 positions to women that had previously been limited to men and lifted a rule that prohibited women from living with combat units.
Panetta also directed the services to examine ways to open more combat roles to women.
However, the ban on direct combat positions has remained in place.

 

[thick1988]

While I think women are "capable" of the role, I find it hard to believe that integrating a combat team with women and men will prove very productive. Prepare yourselves for hours upon hours of outdated 90s Compliance Training videos and seminars... 

p.s. God save them if any become POWs.

 

[Splintert]

Why do I keep imagining pink-and-brown camo pattern guns?

 

[Burzag]

This seems dishonourable to me. I understand why, but I just have a bit of a hard time accepting it.
Of course, I have never been able to shake women's hands, as I do not want to risk hurting their hands, however ridiculously small that chance may be. That I am concerned that much about hurting women's hands, seems to amplify my perspective on women serving in combat roles, and whatever risks that may bring to them (alike to what has been mentioned, the chance that they may become POWs).

 

[Splintert]

whatever risks that may bring to them

Like being shot at?

 

[Burzag]

Yes of course, and killing.

I do not want anyone to have to deal with the kind of nightmare described in my signature, especially women.

 

[Vieira151]

Holy crap, it's Rand Al'Thor.

 

[Burzag]

Well, now that I think of it (and yes, I have read the Wheel of Time series *most of it*)...
That could be said, although I am the opposite of over-emotional. 

I advise that the next post be at least somewhat on-topic.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Wishing that people are not harmed is a good thing. But, as with everything relevant to this subject, such an idea should apply to everyone equally. And, perhaps most importantly, you fail to recognize the harm of prohibiting women from serving in the manner that they choose.

If a woman can fulfill the necessary requirements to earn a job in a battlefield role, she's just as well equipped as any man who has passed the same tests. And she should be able to take on such a role if she chooses.

Inequality based on good intentions is still inequality, and it is still unacceptable.

And lastly, I question your use of the word "dishonorable".

 

[Burzag]

Yes, your arguments are exactly what I intended in "I understand why, but I just have a bit of a hard time accepting it.". Therefore I do not fail to recognize the equality and choice of women in this matter. Perhaps I should have elaborated in my initial statement.

I do not think that women should be bared from choice.

My use of the word 'dishonourable' is on the grounds of intending or causing means of intention to harm anyone, not just women. Hence: "I do not want anyone to have to deal with the kind of nightmare described in my signature, especially women."

Thank you for your input, It is likely that we helped others understand my initial statement. 

 

[Splintert]

So you're a pacifist?

 

[Magorian Aximand]

I hope I didn't seem to diminish the sentiment of understanding the move, but I must stress the qualms I have about your difficulty accepting it. If your problem with acceptance is really rooted in the wish that nobody comes to harm, then your real objection is to war in general. Not in allowing women to participate. In which case you, in point of fact, have no problems accepting this move in the first place.

Which, if that's the case, would lead me to wonder why you posted what you did at all.

 

[Burzag]

I do object to war, and I do not object to allowing women to participate. To be a bit blunt: I accept the move, but I do not like it.

I simply do not want more suffering to take place than already is.

 

[Evelyn]

The fact that Women can't serve openly in combat roles in the United States Military already is sort of saddening, For all the "Freedoms" and "Equality" that our government and populace profess to have.

 

[Bruhlan Revan]

I'm very curious as to how all this turns out.

 

[Mage246]

The fact that Women can't serve openly in combat roles in the United States Military already is sort of saddening, For all the "Freedoms" and "Equality" that our government and founding documents speak about.

Clearly you're not all that familiar with our founding documents, then.

 

[Austupaio]

All I feel towards this is that I hope it's more than a vote grab. I hope, for the sake of preventing a lot of injury, it's done right.

Many countries allow woman into combat roles, but none of them deploy them sheer amount of men to locations as we do.

Even deploying women in Military Police positions to Middle East over the last 4 years has caused an obscene amount of trouble; at the end of the day, soldiers can't be trusted with women.

 

[Bruhlan Revan]

I can see a problem where Men will probably disobey an order to save a female soldier that he likes.
Therefore probably getting people killed.


I don't know though....As long as females do the exact same things the men do to get into those combat roles, such as the fitness requirements, exercises.

 

[Evelyn]

The fact that Women can't serve openly in combat roles in the United States Military already is sort of saddening, For all the "Freedoms" and "Equality" that our government and founding documents speak about.

Clearly you're not all that familiar with our founding documents, then.

I actually wrote something after that, then realized I messed up and deleted most of it. Guess I accidentally left that little part in.

 

[Seff]

I've met enough girls in the serious end of the army that I don't doubt they can fulfill the requirements for the job. Soldiers can easily be trusted with women, they handle all kinds of other temptations and limitations all the time. At least the soldiers I've worked with.

No, periods doesn't mean they can't go out on long operations.
No, the strength requirements for a front-line soldier aren't even close to the limit of what women can work themselves into being capable of. It takes more work than it does for men, but still very doable.

As for sexual harassment, I haven't seen harassment figures for any army that actually has women on the front line, only from the US forces where all the women are flying helicopters or sitting around in bases.