[Dilmah G]

A historic day for the US Armed Forces.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is lifting the military’s ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them, senior defense officials said on Wednesday.
 
The groundbreaking decision overturns a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles, even though in reality women have found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, where more than 20,000 have served. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died.

Defense officials offered few details about Mr. Panetta’s decision but described it as the beginning of a process to allow the branches of the military to put it into effect. Defense officials said Mr. Panetta had made the decision on the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Women have long chafed under the combat restrictions and have increasingly pressured the Pentagon to catch up with the reality on the battlefield. The move comes as Mr. Panetta is about to step down from his post and would leave him with a substantial legacy after only 18 months in the job.

Mr. Panetta’s decision came after he received a Jan. 9 letter from Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stated in strong terms that the armed service chiefs all agreed that “the time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.”

But there was a note of caution. “To implement these initiatives successfully and without sacrificing our war fighting capability or the trust of the American people, we will need time to get it right,” General Dempsey wrote.

A copy of General Dempsey’s letter was provided by a Pentagon official under the condition of anonymity.

The letter noted that this action was meant to ensure that women as well as men “are given the opportunity to succeed.”

As recently as two months ago, four servicewomen filed a federal lawsuit against the Pentagon challenging its combat restriction, saying they had all served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan but had not been officially recognized for it. One of the women, Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, an Air National Guard helicopter pilot, was shot down, returned fire and was wounded while on the ground in Afghanistan, but said she could not seek combat leadership positions because the Defense Department did not officially acknowledge her experience as combat.

Serving in combat positions like the infantry remains crucial to career advancement in the military, and women have long said that by not recognizing their real service the military has unfairly held them back.

It is unclear to what degree Congress will review the decision, although in the past some Republican members of the House have balked at allowing women in combat. In recent years they have asked the Pentagon sometimes sharp questions when it became clear from news reports that women were in fact serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But as of Wednesday afternoon, there appeared to be bipartisan support for the decision on Capitol Hill.

“I support it,'’ Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement. “It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations.'’

Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington and the chairwoman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, called it a “historic step for recognizing the role women have, and will continue to play, in the defense of our nation.'’ She added that “in recent wars that lacked any true front lines, thousands of women already spent their days in combat situations serving side-by-side with their fellow male service members.'’

Senator Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that she was pleased by the decision and that it “reflects the increasing role that female service members play in securing our country.'’

In his letter, General Dempsey said that work remained to set the proper performance standards, both physical and mental, for the new military roles now opening to women. He also set a number of “goals and milestones,” with quarterly progress updates required from the services.

In particular, the Navy will continue to assign more women to warships as privacy and berthing changes are completed.

Now, this, this, and this, is why I don't think we'll ever see women in large numbers, if even at all in some Corps until we possess the ability to do some Mass Effect-style engineering of the human body, but I'm interested and happy to see women now being allowed to apply for these roles. As well as being recognised for the good work that they're already doing. Hopefully we'll have some Captain Nichola Goddard-esque thrusters (RIP) come through at least some of the Combat Arms Corps.

[redsniper]

Cool.

[Lorric]

It's funny, I didn't think there was a ban. Like it says in the opening, women are basically fighting on the front line anyway.

Then I thought Surely we (In the UK) have no such restrictions, right?

Wrong:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9709076/British-army-women-should-fight-their-way-to-the-front-line.html

It's quite an interesting topic. There must surely be militaries in the World with women in the front line, I wonder how they do.

Here's a super female soldier from WWII:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

[Lorric]

It's interesting to read the comments section in my first link. It's basically 100% against the idea of women being given combat roles. Get past the sexists on the first page or so, and you find a lot of good arguments as to why it shouldn't happen. It sounds good on principle, if they're good enough they should be allowed to fight the same as the men, but it probably wouldn't be so simple and clean in reality if it went through. It will be interesting to see how this develops for America.

[Dilmah G]

Yeah, it's appalling that they weren't getting recognition for fighting on the frontline. As for militaries with women on the frontline, both the Kiwis and the Canadians have had a handful of women in Combat Arms Corps like Artillery and Infantry (like Cpt. Goddard, whom I mentioned in the OP). The articles in the OP that I've linked at the bottom illustrate why there'll only ever be a very, very small number.

For a lot of militaries it's simply a high cost for not a lot of gain, since women are injured and fail infantry training at a disproportionately high rate to men. This would probably be mitigated by a specialist physical training program before the commencement of Infantry training, but again, this is a large cost for little gain until we can change the structure of the female body.

Pavlichenko was no doubt a good sniper, but she's useful for highlighting the issues with the female body in combat. And that is that there's no doubt women can function in combat (the psychological arguments are bull****, women are in combat every day outside the wire in the Middle East and there's no 'oh god save the wimminz' going on there). The issue is with the female body's ability to bear a load for long periods at a time, move at a combat pace with her load, and maintain enough of a physical capability to do her job whilst on operations, which are things Pavlichenko would not have been doing as a sniper, or at least, not with the kind of loads that our people are carrying today.

[Lorric]

Yeah, it's appalling that they weren't getting recognition for fighting on the frontline. As for militaries with women on the frontline, both the Kiwis and the Canadians have had a handful of women in Combat Arms Corps like Artillery and Infantry (like Cpt. Goddard, whom I mentioned in the OP). The articles in the OP that I've linked at the bottom illustrate why there'll only ever be a very, very small number.

For a lot of militaries it's simply a high cost for not a lot of gain, since women are injured and fail infantry training at a disproportionately high rate to men. This would probably be mitigated by a specialist physical training program before the commencement of Infantry training, but again, this is a large cost for little gain until we can change the structure of the female body.

Pavlichenko was no doubt a good sniper, but she's useful for highlighting the issues with the female body in combat. And that is that there's no doubt women can function in combat (the psychological arguments are bull****, women are in combat every day outside the wire in the Middle East and there's no 'oh god save the wimminz' going on there). The issue is with the female body's ability to bear a load for long periods at a time, move at a combat pace with her load, and maintain enough of a physical capability to do her job whilst on operations, which are things Pavlichenko would not have been doing as a sniper, or at least, not with the kind of loads that our people are carrying today.

I think pretty much everything you said and more popped up in the comments section. Apart from stuff about the specific female soldiers (like Pavlichenko.)

I guess they're issues the general population won't think of, it seems so simple and seemed that way to me, that there would be few good enough but why waste the talents of the few that are, but it's just not that simple. It's regrettable for those few, but the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.

However, anyone who does end up in combat should certainly be acknowledged, as that's stupid not to. The enemy doesn't care who you are, and sometimes you'll get sucked in even if your role isn't to fight.

I wonder if females can end up as snipers. I certainly don't see why not, snipers are certainly not supposed to be on the front line, they are combat soldiers, but the idea is they don't end up having to fight ideally. Ideally, they'll pick someone off and no one will know. Females should be just as capable as males of performing this task. Also, you think of snipers as operating alone, which eliminates all the psychological problems of males integrating with females in a combat scenario.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

Hopefully with the eventual introduction of exoskeletons, we can trivialize the issue of differences in physical strength. I like to see things like this, and I'm glad women will get a shot (no pun intended) at frontline combat, if that's what they want.

[Dilmah G]

I hope so too. Although I'm yet to see a prototype of a combat exoskeleton.

I wonder if females can end up as snipers. I certainly don't see why not, snipers are certainly not supposed to be on the front line, they are combat soldiers, but the idea is they don't end up having to fight ideally. Ideally, they'll pick someone off and no one will know. Females should be just as capable as males of performing this task. Also, you think of snipers as operating alone, which eliminates all the psychological problems of males integrating with females in a combat scenario.

I'm not sure of the way it works in the US, but I know in Australia, and probably also in the UK, the people who become snipers are generally the people who are doing very, very well in an Infantry battalion. I have no doubt that women can be as good shots as men, but again, the issue is with the female soldier being able to get to her lie-up point somewhere behind enemy lines without severely injuring herself due to her load or landing from a jump (I believe the 'q-angle' that women possess makes them far more susceptible to being injured when they land with a load), suffering large amounts of muscle atrophy, and at a combat pace. It will take a very capable woman to achieve that.

But yes, this is a bit more complex than it looks, and unfortunately for women, very much stacked against them through no fault of their own.

[General Battuta]

It's gonna be a tough road. Women in front line combat will get hit three times as hard for every mistake and they'll know it. Every incident of misconduct or slip-up will be taken as a sign of essential failure in their sex. There'll be scandal, rape, and politics.

But at least the door's open now.

[Rhys]

Hopefully with the eventual introduction of exoskeletons, we can trivialize the issue of differences in physical strength. I like to see things like this, and I'm glad women will get a shot (no pun intended) at frontline combat, if that's what they want.

If they weren't so expensive. The cost of outfitting every 11B with one of those would be astronomical. Here's hoping that the future will make this stuff less expensive to produce.

[Dilmah G]

It's gonna be a tough road. Women in front line combat will get hit three times as hard for every mistake and they'll know it. Every incident of misconduct or slip-up will be taken as a sign of essential failure in their sex. There'll be scandal, rape, and politics.

But at least the door's open now.

Indeed, it'll probably have its own Tailhook Scandal, unfortunately, but if the US can integrate the Fighter Corps, they can do it in Infantry. I think it may be some time though until we do see a woman in a combat unit.

[Dragon]

There's also a factor that women not necessarily want to sign up for combat roles. Some time ago, USMC opened up infantry officer training to women. There were two female recruits, both dropped out along with more than 30 men (I can't recall precise numbers now, but it was all in Marine Corps Times). Given those numbers, it might take a lot of time before women make up a statistically significant part of infantry. That said, this decision is a very good sign. Excluding half of the population from service was a huge waste of potential.

[LordPomposity]

I wonder if females can end up as snipers. I certainly don't see why not, snipers are certainly not supposed to be on the front line, they are combat soldiers, but the idea is they don't end up having to fight ideally. Ideally, they'll pick someone off and no one will know. Females should be just as capable as males of performing this task. Also, you think of snipers as operating alone, which eliminates all the psychological problems of males integrating with females in a combat scenario.

Snipers typically work in pairs, but the psychological problems are pretty much bunk anyways.

So long as the physical aptitude tests accurately measure whether a candidate is physically capable of performing all the duties that go with the job (i.e., hold men and women to the exact same standards), physical weakness shouldn't be an issue, either.* Such tests will probably disqualify women at a much higher rate than men, but with modern technology and combat being what they are, I can't really see an alternative that's not going to leave somebody dead.

But I'm sure the Pentagon has thought about all this, so I'll just say that this is long overdue and I wish the women in our military the best of luck. God knows they need it, considering that most of the job is going to be just as miserable for them as it is for men, and the rest is going to be worse.**

*The only military physical standards I'm familiar with are the ones for U.S. Navy officers. These hold women to a significantly lower standard than men, which is completely appropriate considering the nature of the job. Not so here.

**The part that's going to be worse is the part that relates to interacting with a certain segment of men in our military that is now pretty small, but is still entirely too large.

[Colonol Dekker]

From my experience in a Combat Support Arm (Royal Engineers for 14 years in April coming) I can say without fault, that I've met women who are tough as nails, and can out-do most men in their role. Like wise and as a counter-point, i've met men who were so embarrassingly slack that they got carted off with their heads hung low and brandished with shame for life due to the ****-uppery they achieved due to lack of effort or maintaining themselves physically.

I think there was one count (that i directly came into contact with) of a woman getting 'emotional', she passed the physical training demands for Afghanistan deployment, made it out there, and got a bit of stick more for being a reservist than anything else. But it was from other women in the regiment, full timers who (according to unbiased sources i have still out there, of both sexes) felt threateneed by her hotness, and youth. She got *****ed about and made to do **** jobs for the first month and wasn't having much fun...

Back now though, due to lack of work for the Brimstone teams. Which is actually a bloody good reason and i'm genuinely happy for it.

[NGTM-1R]

There's also a factor that women not necessarily want to sign up for combat roles.

This is improbable if not downright impossible. The Army alone comprises over 1.1 million personnel split roughly equally between active-duty and reserve. I can't find a good demographic breakdown at the moment, but even if we assume it's around five percent then it's deeply unlikely nobody would volunteer for a combat arm previously denied to them. This does not, after all, mean purely foot infantry: previously it was anyone who in some fashion directly attacks the enemy, whether that means cocking a cannon or driving a tank.

[Black Wolf]

I hope so too. Although I'm yet to see a prototype of a combat exoskeleton.

They're getting there, but I believe batteries and battery life are the big hold-ups.

[MP-Ryan]

It'll be interesting.  More impetus than ever before for the US Armed forces to take a meaningful stand on sexual assaults, which they have traditionally dropped the ball on.

[Dragon]

This is improbable if not downright impossible. The Army alone comprises over 1.1 million personnel split roughly equally between active-duty and reserve. I can't find a good demographic breakdown at the moment, but even if we assume it's around five percent then it's deeply unlikely nobody would volunteer for a combat arm previously denied to them. This does not, after all, mean purely foot infantry: previously it was anyone who in some fashion directly attacks the enemy, whether that means cocking a cannon or driving a tank.

I was speaking generally. Of course there are some women that want and now will enlist into a combat role. But there isn't a lot of them. But considering everything, a very small number will actually make it. A 1% out of 5% is hardly statistically significant.

[Colonol Dekker]

Women that join the army are just men who have breasts. This is a fact (in the UK speaking from experience) some look rougher than a stuntmans knee, some can scrub up and look hotter than most (google combat barbie for reference) .

They are just people, and they're as likely to volunteer for deployment, case in point being my good friend Victoria Swain was/always will be, til the end of time, the first female qaulified REST member, I'd let her work with me any day of the week and to be fair she's a lot LOT better at it than some blokes.

There are women in the army toomuch like blokes who will try and swerve (avoid) anything resembling work that requires either backbone, graft, or balls (figuratively) and that will never change. There may even be some who will play on their gender to try and get out of it, on both sides. Men play the buddy card/old boys club card to avoid less preferable duties when they can get a recruit to do it instead (and why not ).

What i'm saying is, both genders are guildty of being good, and exceptional sometimes, but likewise we both love a skive too. So why bother differentiating between the two and just give everyone a pay-rise or slap depending on who needs what.

[SypheDMar]

This is improbable if not downright impossible. The Army alone comprises over 1.1 million personnel split roughly equally between active-duty and reserve. I can't find a good demographic breakdown at the moment, but even if we assume it's around five percent then it's deeply unlikely nobody would volunteer for a combat arm previously denied to them. This does not, after all, mean purely foot infantry: previously it was anyone who in some fashion directly attacks the enemy, whether that means cocking a cannon or driving a tank.

I was speaking generally. Of course there are some women that want and now will enlist into a combat role. But there isn't a lot of them. But considering everything, a very small number will actually make it. A 1% out of 5% is hardly statistically significant.

Please provide source or get out. Being pessimistic about women's chances does not count.