Leon Panetta to lift ban on women in combat
The Pentagon is lifting its ban on women in combat roles, opening thousands of previously closed jobs in the most dangerous units in the military, but the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee said it might not mean major changes by the time all is said and done.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to make a formal announcement at 1:30 p.m. Thursday. A senior defense official told POLITICO that Panetta made his decision after a recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicating the top brass supports opening more combat roles to women.
Continue Reading(PHOTOS: Female war veterans: From uniform to Congress)
But Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey will not announce a wholesale lifting of the ban, the senior defense official said.
Instead, they’ll “initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision,” he said. Service leaders will have until 2016 to recommend “exceptions” — areas they feel should remain male-only — to Defense Department leaders. Some combat jobs will be immediately opened to women, defense officials said, though those details weren’t clear yet.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told him the policy change would not have that big of an effect on the makeup of military units.
“I do not believe this will be a broad opening of combat roles for women, because as [a] 2012 report indicated, there are ‘serious practical barriers which must be resolved so that the department can maximize the safety and privacy of all military members while maintaining military readiness,’” Inhofe said.
Although he praised the service of women in the military, Inhofe blasted the Pentagon for leaking it before telling Congress.
“As a result, we don’t yet know the details of this announcement,” he said.
(Also on POLITICO: Duckworth: Women in combat 'win for our nation')
The Pentagon’s decision reawakened one of the most politically explosive issues facing the military, pitting purists and conservatives against women’s advocates and modernizers who have long argued women can do anything on the battlefield that men can.
Over time, the policies governing female troops and their actual roles on the battlefield began to overlap. One of the most notorious stories of the Iraq War was the capture of a female soldier truck driver, Jessica Lynch, who although technically barred from combat, was nonetheless captured and taken hostage just as any front-line soldier might have been.
As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wound down, the services’ policies caught up with the reality of female troops’ service. Women were permitted to serve aboard Navy submarines, from which they were once barred, and then in combat support — as tank mechanics or radar operators, for example, who were close to the front lines if not serving on them.
(PHOTOS: 13 people to watch in 2013)
Congressional Democrats welcomed the decision almost unanimously, while Republicans and conservative critics were slower out of the gate.
“I support it,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). “It reflects the reality of 21st-century military operations.”
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, another Armed Services Committee Democrat, said he knew women would do their part.
“I have not a problem with that because the ladies I know in West Virginia shoot very well,” Manchin said. “And they’ll do a very fine job if they desire to do it. Ladies help us, we all work together, everybody pulls their own load.”
Readers' Comments (68)
LWP Janet Party: NA
Reply #1
Jan. 23, 2013 - 3:39 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
locosabio Party: Independent
Reply #2
Jan. 23, 2013 - 3:48 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Sgtjack Party: NA
Reply #3
Jan. 23, 2013 - 3:57 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Daxis Party: N/A
Reply #4
Jan. 23, 2013 - 4:00 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Daxis Party: N/A
Reply #5
Jan. 23, 2013 - 4:04 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
nudnik Party: Independent
Reply #6
Jan. 23, 2013 - 4:13 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Ghengis Party: Independent
Reply #7
Jan. 23, 2013 - 4:21 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
TheEducatedPatriot Party: Independent
Reply #8
Jan. 23, 2013 - 4:44 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
samsays Party: Liberal
Reply #9
Jan. 23, 2013 - 4:52 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
DVL Party: Conservative
Reply #10
Jan. 23, 2013 - 4:53 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
samsays Party: Liberal
Reply #11
Jan. 23, 2013 - 4:57 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
dookhh Party: N/A
Reply #12
Jan. 23, 2013 - 4:59 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Mikey123 Party: NA
Reply #13
Jan. 23, 2013 - 5:00 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
KonaMan Party: Independent
Reply #14
Jan. 23, 2013 - 5:13 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
ed762 Party: N/A
Reply #15
Jan. 23, 2013 - 5:24 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
mlwm Party: NA
Reply #16
Jan. 23, 2013 - 5:26 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Blackjack6 Party: Democrat
Reply #17
Jan. 23, 2013 - 5:29 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
EDC08 Party: Democrat
Reply #18
Jan. 23, 2013 - 5:42 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
azdon Party: NA
Reply #19
Jan. 23, 2013 - 5:48 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
kcmo_710 Party: NA
Reply #20
Jan. 23, 2013 - 5:48 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Read all 68 comments in our forumBravo, Leon Panetta & the Joint Chiefs of Staff for making a big dent in the fight for gender equity.
This goes against nature. Women are best suited for charming their enemy into submission, not defeating them in physical combat!
So will women have to meet the same physical qualifications as men do now, or will they either come up with two different sets of standards or else lowe the physical requirements so the women can pass.
Either way, the result will be more dead women. Women are simply not built with the same upper body strength as men. What will happen is the men will be expected to carry the heavier loads. If a woman wants to be in a combat unit then she should have to meet the identical requirements. When i was in the Marine Corps during the 1980s the men were required to do pull ups and sit ups as part of their annual fitness exam while the women only had to hang from the pull up bar and do a similar thing in place of actual situps. That is not equal. Equal means both doing the same action. In combat this double standard will result in people dying.
Also does this mean that women will now be forced to serve in combat regardless of their wishes? If not then again that is not equality for the men have no choice. Also this should mean that women that women should now be borced to register for selective service.
I have two daughters and I do not want them to have to register for selective service, but thanks to Panetta they are now considered equal to men and thus eligible.
If Israel can have women on the frontlines, why can't we?
I applaud this decision. It's about time.
I forgot to mention how the Soviets had 400,000 women serving on the frontlines in World War II.
Here's a particular famous case:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
If bull dykes want to be cannon fodder I have no objection. It will keep them from corrupting society while they are deployed..
If they are willing and able to do the deed, go for it.
I have three daughters. They should register for selective service. That is part of equality.
I served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Panetta is just making the past 12 years of practice consistent with policy. The services effectively ignored the ban for most of OIF/OEF.
We already have women combat pilots, women medics serving in front line units, women in convoys in hostile areas, women POWs, women awarded for valor in close combat, women wounded, and women killed in action. We have awarded women the Silver Star for ground combat and the Distinguished Flying Cross to female combat pilots. We have women submariners, women embedded with Special Forces teams on medical missions and cultural engagements.
If you think this is controversal or new, you haven't been paying attention for the past decade.
Another step towards equality for women taken by this Democratic president.
Republican “Tea Party” Republicans will not like this for several reasons, beginning with their objection to anything and everything that Obama does.
Beyond that, because they’re conservatives, and want to keep things just the way they are, they will not like this change any better than they like any change.
Their objections are based in part on their prognostications that allowing women in combat roles will harm the military. These claims will prove to be every bit as wrong as their chuckleheaded predictions that lifting the ban on openly gay and lesbian service members will harm the military.
Finally, it will rarely come as a surprise to hear conservatives oppose the advancement and empowerment of women, period.
Sgtjack wrote:
So will women have to meet the same physical qualifications as men do now, or will they either come up with two different sets of standards or else lower the physical requirements so the women can pass.
___________________
They already have two different sets of standards. If you're so determined to prove you can do anything men can shouldn't you prove that meeting the same standards? If not how is this increasing combat effectiveness and readiness during a time of war?
Why is the Obama administration so motivated to change military culture while the military has the stress of fighting these wars?
Why is the Obama administration so motivated to change military culture while the military has the stress of fighting these wars?
Improvement. Advancement.
To make us better.
Better.
Look that word up, Republican.
yay- it's about time. Now make all units 50/50 non-voluntary and bring back the draft, include all men and women over the age of 18(we are all equal right?). Those who don't like it can finish their tour and get out and join a well regulated militia. We should also be able to reduce the of the military greatly and of course, not have to fund a military that is the most expensive in the world.
This won't make the world a more peaceful place, it will just mean that the US will have an international voice that is heard as loudly as Lichtenstein's.
And the hits from this moron Adminstration keep on a coming.
This is a REALLY BAD idea!! The social experiments of the left are destroying our Military and our country.. Another SAD day under this liberal Administration..
TheEducatedPatriot As 11B women CAN NOT do the same thing as a male. Because women DO NOT have the upper body strength and CAN NOT pass the same AFPT. SO, NO women should not be 11B or other combat arms. When I went threw training, we started with 64 in the platoon and graduate 26. When I changed my MOS and had to deal with females in the field and their is no way they can be in a out post. Bad ideal for combat troops.
Women should be the nurturers and men should be the Protectors, IMHO.I always think women join the Military to be around the men or are Lesbos.Now, freak out. It's what I think so what you gonna do about it.Like those rabid Islamic men won't rape the hell out of those women if they get them ? Don't come crying when it happens. You asked for it, you got it.
I bet KonaMan felt the same way when they ended segregation in the military.
A certainty in life is that men think far too highly of themselves and women think far too low of themselves. Men have throughout history told women what they are or are not capable of. We have been told we cannot be doctors, lawyers, police officers, politicians, professors, bankers, CEO's, inventors, entrepreneurs, indian chiefs, you name it. In every single instance men have been wrong. And those men that are now saying women can't be in combat are wrong, as usual. You'd think men would get tired of being wrong and just be quiet instead.
So, a Democratic president and administration want to send women off to war, but it's Republicans that were waging a war on women?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I am sure any of these women in combat areas could easily kick SgtJack and DVL's asses with one hand tied behind their backs. One swift kick to the nuts... oh, wait, it is obvious they don't have any.
I would hate to be a a woman married to these troglodytes. "Honey.... beer me!!"
You must be logged in to comment
Not yet a member?
Register Now