Official Site of the U.S. Air Force   Right Corner Banner
Join the Air Force

News > Panel says rescind policy on women in combat
 
Related Biographies
 GENERAL LESTER L. LYLES
Panel says rescind policy on women in combat

Posted 3/7/2011 Email story   Print story

    


by Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service


3/7/2011 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- A commission established to study diversity among military leaders is recommending that Defense Department officials rescind the policy that prevents women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level.

In a report issued today, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommends that the department and the services eliminate combat exclusion policies for women, as well as other "barriers and inconsistencies, to create a level playing field for all qualified service members."

Retired Gen. Lester L. Lyles, who chaired the commission, said the recommendation, one of 20 in the report and the only one specific to women, is one way the congressionally mandated body suggests the military can get more qualified women into its more-senior leadership ranks.

"We know that (the exclusion) hinders women from promotion," General Lyles said.

"We want to take away all the hindrances and cultural biases" in promotions, he said.

The commission was established as part of the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act to evaluate and assess policies that provide opportunities for promotion and advancement of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the armed forces.

The 1994 combat exclusion policy, as written, precludes women from being assigned to ground combat units, but women have for years served in ground combat situations by serving in units deemed attached to ground units, General Lyles said.

That distinction keeps them from being recognized for their ground combat experience -- recognition that would enhance their chances for promotion, he said.

"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," General Lyles said. "Women serve -- and they lead -- military security (units), military police units, air defense units (and) intelligence units, all of which have to be right there with combat veterans in order to do the job appropriately."

Women serving in combat environments are being shot at, killed and maimed, General Lyles said.

"But they're not getting the credit for being in combat arms," he said, "(and) that's important for their consideration for the most senior flag ranks, three stars and four stars, primarily."

In the commission's outreach to military leaders, General Lyles said, at least a couple of service leaders thought there would be little interest among women to serve in combat.

But when the commission brought in a panel of commissioned and enlisted women from different services, "that's certainly not what we picked up" from talking to them, he said.

"I didn't hear, 'Rah, rah, we want to be in combat,'" he 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. Removing the barriers for that, and removing the barriers to them getting credit for that, was our number one focus."

DOD spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said department officials "will thoroughly evaluate" the panel's recommendations as part of their ongoing review of diversity policies.

Meanwhile, she said, "Women will continue to be assigned to units and positions that may necessitate combat actions within the scope of their restricted positioning -- situations for which they are fully trained and equipped to respond."



tabComments
3/18/2011 12:48:33 PM ET
And as for women being assigned to direct combat units.....I don't think so.
Mo, MidSouth
 
3/14/2011 12:57:46 PM ET
R. R. Soucy it is unfortunate that your comment was not in jest. First I would like to point out that we do not have a shortage of men. The DoD is currently turning away qualified applicants because there are more individuals interested in joining the military than we have room for. Additionally military decisions are not made to define the sexes. They are made in order to fulfill a military need. There is not a military purpose in ensuring that you are happy with the gender roles in the military. There is a military purpose in ensuring that our upper military leadership consists of more than old white republican conservative males. If you have too many people with too similar of backgrounds in all of the key leadership roles you hamper new and innovative thought. It is also simply wrong to have females coming home in body bags but not acknowledge them as having a combat role. The same with the homosexuals. We have homosexuals coming home in body bags but we are not ...
Analyst, Barksdale
 
3/14/2011 10:05:01 AM ET
@Capt G and Caveman. So from reading your comments it boils down to you as a support troop want to be recognized for getting a AFCAM. But you want to have a CAB like badge to wear on a daily basis on your ABU's so people will know that you have seen what you call combat. And that having a AFCAM or CAB should weight more for what promotions or what? Do I have it right?
Mo, MidSouth
 
3/13/2011 7:17:06 PM ET
Re. Analyst Barksdale, No.And Sarah W-P. Yes,first sentence.The remainder is only in your mind.
R. R. Soucy, Northern California
 
3/10/2011 12:47:20 AM ET
Ridiculous. Between this and the officer affirmative action policy it's obvious the agenda is to give everyone a trophy. Good luck with it. Watch the exodus of good combat-experienced leaders whose professional opinions were not considered. Hope it works out for you all. If the dissention alone doesn't weaken you beyond mission capability, the loss of combat-capability will be obvious. I bet there's an AFSO21 event tied to these initiatives. Somebody would have said it made good sense on paper. My unit struggles to meet the admin processes due to pregnancy-related profiles and single moms. Maybe if we give them a weapon, body armor and ruck sack...
Jerry, TX
 
3/9/2011 5:30:02 AM ET
While I agree with this, PT standards need to be changed to ensure that men and woman are truly equal in physical capability.
jj, NM
 
3/8/2011 11:41:00 PM ET
Response to Mo. Actually the word I wrote in my original submission was culture not cult. A CAB or giving the AFCAM more weight is a way to develop combat mentality among Airmen that are not in combat type AFSCs, which is most of us. Support Airmen lack combat mentality because they don't grow up in that environment like the Army. Most grow up in a corporate type climate. So when these Airmen are placed in combat environments it is a rude awakening. There are more Airmen in these situations than you realize and unless you've done formal research you can't speak on their behalf to say they don't want another badge to wear. Go ask an Airman on your base that has earned an AFCAM if he or she would wear a CAB if eligible. Their answer may surprise you. Your view on this is not uncommon because the AF is not ready to have support guys and gals walking around with something that shows they have more combat experience than our pilots.
Capt G in AFG, Afghanistan
 
3/8/2011 10:45:13 PM ET
@Mo - You must be sitting behind a desk somewhere or in a missle silo. There are significant numbers of Airmen who have engaged in direct combat earning the AFCAM. Thousands of Airmen have completed JET or ILO taskings and been OTW. The number is larger than you think. I agree w Capt G, the AF preaches combat readiness but there is no substance behind the talk. Giving the AFCAM more weight is a good start.
Caveman, Mess o' potamia
 
3/8/2011 4:44:48 PM ET
AP, mothers and daughters are coming home in body bags as we speak. Our country still says that says that women are not in combat roles but somehow my sisters in arms keep coming home in body bags. I think it is time we stop the semantics game and finally admit we have women in combat. If they are capable of the job let them do it and acknowledge their contributions.
Analyst, Barksdale
 
3/8/2011 4:35:07 PM ET
If this recommendation is accepted and women are ALLOWED in combat then they should NOT be ALLOWED to opt out of combat. Also women ages 18-25 MUST register for the draft just like men. If they don't then they aren't eligible for things like student loans. What's fair is fair. If women are allowed to opt INTO combat roles but they can also opt OUT and they don't have to register for the draft. How exactly is that fair? I am all for EQUALITY...
Jerry, Oklahoma
 
3/8/2011 3:27:04 PM ET
I think it's utterly appalling, first the lifting of DADT and now this. The crazy liberals who think men and women are equal IN EVERY SINGLE ASPECT are dead wrong and these policies are going to wreak havoc on military readiness. I honestly think gung-ho butch type women that want to be in combat are few and far between, and even they don't know what they are getting themselves into. I guess it won't really sink in until the mothers and daughters of this nation are coming home in body bags after being blown to unrecognizable bits by an IED or RPG.
AP, wichita falls tx
 
3/8/2011 2:25:01 PM ET
@Capt G. Do you really think the AF needs to create another badge so people can feel good about themselves? The very, very small number of AF personnel that do engage in direct ground combat could really care less for another badge. The AF combat action medal is given out for a reason. If someone needs to wear a badge to motivate themselves then maybe their true motivation is somewhere else. And until the AF quits using CBT's to prepare their people to operate down range instead of real training, I don't see the combat cult you desire come to pass.
Mo, MidSouth
 
3/8/2011 2:06:16 PM ET
R.R. Soucy - I hope that your comments are in jest. I do not see how we are sick for having society's gender norms change. I say a woman is a woman and she can determine what that means. There is no need to impose your gender norms upon others. Women are in combat already; it is time we faced the fact and gave credit where it is due.
Analyst, Barksdale
 
3/8/2011 12:35:15 PM ET
R.R - you probably think women's place is in the kitchen too. Your definition of a woman is completely culturally based and is not accepted worldwide. Why should we be put in the place YOU think we belong? There is no front line in the war we are in - women are placed in danger every day in Afghanistan and it is time that we are recognized for our role in today's military. It's 2011. Deal with it.
Sarah, W-P
 
3/8/2011 10:40:03 AM ET
Lifting the ban on women in combat to get recognized is not necessary. Army women get recognized with the Combat Action Badge. Unfortunately the AF doesn't place much value on ground combat. You can earn the AF Combat Action Medal but the only way you'd know someone has one is if you saw them wearing their ribbons. It's not worth promotion points, it's lower in precedence than the AF Achievement Medal and doesn't appear in the career SURF. AF should change that. Combat is a traumatic, life-altering experience and AF men and women who've earned an AFCAM should benefit more from it. It may also help motivate and better reward Airmen in the fight fulfilling Army taskings. We preach Combat Airmen but without substance those are just empty words. If AF leaders created a CAB for Airmen -- to wear all the time above AFSC badge -- or gave the AFCAM more weight, that would be substance. Then you may start seeing more Combat Airmen and Airwomen and the emergence of a real AF combat cult.
Capt G in AFG, Afghanistan
 
3/8/2011 7:30:16 AM ET
There's absolutely no question that the contributions of women to the war effort have been and continue to be vital. Sounds like the perfect reason to either include everyone in Selective Service registration or scrap it altogether.
FB, Midwest
 
3/7/2011 8:28:40 PM ET
Rather than admit a shortage of men, this is the remedy? This policy, along with women in submarines, stinks. It is irrational when it comes in defining the sexes. Now, with a commitment to letting the gays and lesbians serve openly by training the straight to learn to accept and adapt, everything has become cockeyed. Is it any wonder that we ever see a woman in a dress anymore? I think not. Our thinking is sick. Soon we will have no distinction between motherhood and fatherhood. Women in combat! Some masculine-females will go along with that, others would prefer not. I say a woman is a woman is a woman, just like a rose is a rose is a rose. Let men be men and women be women. If we have a shortage of fighting men, it is certainly not for lack of benefits and educational compensations that extend to the entire family it seems. We need to be more reasonable in facing the unique challenges that have come about since Desert Storm when warfare seems to have taken on a changing face.
R. R. Soucy, Northern California
 
3/7/2011 8:16:52 PM ET
Just a reaction - I don't have a dog in this fight but I find it intersting that a retired AF General Officer who is a minority is appointed chair of this commission.Why not a US Army or USMC retired General Officer - one who has seen ground combat? Female USAF pilots have been flying combat missions for years. Why an AF General Officer?
Chuck Martin, Alexandria VA
 
Add a comment

 Inside AF.mil

ima cornerSearch

tabSubscribe AF.MIL
tabMore HeadlinesRSS feed 
Reservists can carry leave balance after training tours

In wake of Sandy, mobility Airmen poised to 'answer the call'

McGuire continues recovery efforts, FEMA base of operations

Hercules flies through the night

Sheppard Airmen spring into action; save woman from burning car

AF accepting distinguished civilian award nominations

Watching 'Sandy'

More than 7,400 National Guard members responding to Hurricane Sandy

Vanguard nominees sought

Weather recon squadron takes last look at 'Sandy'

AF officials eliminate civilian skill code requirements

NORTHCOM supports hurricane response efforts  |  VIDEO

305th AMW Airmen evacuate ahead of 'Sandy'  |  VIDEO

Dover Airmen prepare for Hurricane Sandy  |  VIDEO

tabCommentaryRSS feed 
Domestic violence awareness 'experiment'

Teal ropes to spotlight sexual assault response  37


Site Map      Contact Us     Questions     Security and Privacy notice     E-publishing