The U.S. military will let women serve in all combat roles, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Thursday in a historic move striking down gender barriers in the armed forces.

"As long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before," Carter told a Pentagon news conference.

"They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALS, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men," he said.

President Barack Obama called the move a "historic step forward," saying it would "make our military even stronger."

A recent study, for instance, by Britain’s Tri-Service Review found that mixed-gender combat units have “lower survivability,” a “reduced lethality rate” and reduced deployability. This study, along with countless others done over the last 40 years, demonstrate that combat capabilities are so heavily weighted toward men that the gap cannot be closed. As Marine Corps captain Lauren Serrano put it in a September 2014 article in the Marine Gazette: “Acknowledging that women are different (not just physically) than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion.”

Before looking at the facts surrounding the hard truth referred to by Captain Serrano, consider the three major arguments for putting women into combat.

The first and most commonly used argument goes something like this: “Not sure if it’s a good idea, but if women can meet the same standards as men, then I guess it would only be fair to allow them into combat.”

But the last 40 years of aggressive integration efforts by the U.S. military have shown that women cannot meet the same rigorous standards as men — and the answer has been to implement different standards for women, while lowering the standards for men, too. A 2011 study on physical requirements necessary for specific occupations in the military conducted by Dr. William Gregor for the U.S. Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies concludes:

The Services, especially the Army, have expanded the military occupational specialties (MOS) open to women purely as a part of the social concern for equality and have only paid lip service to combat readiness. . . . The Army’s own research indicates that the vast majority of women do not possess the lean mass necessary to meet the strength requirements for very heavy and heavy physical MOS’s.

The Army assigns women to these specialties anyway.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... y-pentagon

bbauska wrote:Sass,
EXACTLY! AMEN BROTHER!

I have no problem with a woman having the same standards as a man (as long as the standards are not reduced) to do the job. I have been pulled out of Alaskan Waters by a woman I was stationed with. She could do the job, and I would be proud to serve with her again.

Sadly, her story can be overshadowed by at least 20 others.

rickyp wrote:There are over 20 western countries that allow women in combat. Israel?
In the US civil war its documented than hundreds of women dressed as men and participated in combat.
Russia had an all female regiment in WWI and women at the front lines in many roles.
This is a non-issue.
Women can kill, especially with modern weapons, as well as men.

rickyp wrote:There are over 20 western countries that allow women in combat. Israel?
In the US civil war its documented than hundreds of women dressed as men and participated in combat.
Russia had an all female regiment in WWI and women at the front lines in many roles.
This is a non-issue.
Women can kill, especially with modern weapons, as well as men.

We agree that women can be in combat roles. I think our disagreement is whether standards should be relaxed

Clause 16A of the military service law requires that female combat soldiers serve 3 years of mandatory service, and continue in reserves service up to age 38, even if they become mothers. These are essentially identical to the terms of service for male combat soldiers.[3] Each year, 1,500 female combat soldiers are drafted into the IDF.[6] Women currently make up 3% of the IDF's combat soldiers.[8] Women were not employed in combat roles until 2000, when the Caracal Battalion was raised.
In 2014, the IDF appointed Major Oshrat Bacher as Israel’s first female combat battalion commander.[21]
A combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[5] The unit undergoes training like any combat infantry.[6] The IDF commando K9 unit, Oketz, also drafts females as combat soldiers.[8]

rickyp wrote:bbauska

We agree that women can be in combat roles. I think our disagreement is whether standards should be relaxed

Why is it that the US stumbles into these things after most other nations and don't consider the experiences of those nations?
What standards has Israel relaxed for instance?

Clause 16A of the military service law requires that female combat soldiers serve 3 years of mandatory service, and continue in reserves service up to age 38, even if they become mothers. These are essentially identical to the terms of service for male combat soldiers.[3] Each year, 1,500 female combat soldiers are drafted into the IDF.[6] Women currently make up 3% of the IDF's combat soldiers.[8] Women were not employed in combat roles until 2000, when the Caracal Battalion was raised.
In 2014, the IDF appointed Major Oshrat Bacher as Israel’s first female combat battalion commander.[21]
A combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[5] The unit undergoes training like any combat infantry.[6] The IDF commando K9 unit, Oketz, also drafts females as combat soldiers.[8]

freeman3 wrote:I think the biggest problem-- this is what Israel found in 1948--is the reduction of combat effectiveness of men by having women in combat. Israeli male soldiers tried to protect and assist women rather than doing their job and morale of units went down when there were female casualties.
The central issue would be how do you correct the natural tendency of men to protect women when they are in harm's way and just treat them as any other member of the unit. I think there are probably more individualistic combat roles where this is not (at least as much of) a problem, however.