Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s decision, taken at the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to lift the ban on women in combat is hardly “radical social engineering,” as some critics claim. It is, more than anything, a recognition of what is and has been the status quo.
Roughly three-quarters of military jobs have already been opened to women. They are serving in combat zones as pilots, intelligence analysts, logisticians, military police officers, and in other specialties that expose them to considerable risk—all the more so because the kind of war we are fighting today is a guerrilla war in which the enemy can strike anywhere and there are no defined front lines. In the army and Marine Corps women are still forbidden from serving in combat units at the battalion and below level, but there are many women—not just military personnel but also contractors—on Forward Operating Bases where brigades and higher headquarters are to be found. This means that there is plenty of interaction today between men and women in uniform.
This has, in truth, created some issues with “fraternization” and sexual assault, but those are being dealt with by the chain of command. On the whole the integration of women has been a positive experience for the armed forces, expanding the pool of talented individuals who can contribute to the fight.
It is not clear how radical the change imposed by Panetta’s decree will actually be. He is not mandating, as I understand it, that every service open every job to women; he is simply shifting the burden of proof by requiring the services to make compelling arguments as to why women should not serve in certain jobs instead of assuming they will be excluded. There could very well be a strong case made that women should still be kept out of small infantry and Special Operations units where accommodations and hygiene are primitive and where sexual tensions could harm esprit de corps.
And opening up jobs to women doesn’t necessarily mean that they will flock to fill those slots or, even if they volunteer, that they will be found qualified. It is vitally important that physical standards not be watered down in order to increase the number of women in certain units. Being a grunt is still hard, physical labor—you have to hump 80 pounds or more of equipment and to walk long distances in punishing heat or cold. That is not something most men could do, let alone most women.
But as long as standards are enforced evenhandedly—along with rules against sexual harassment, assault and other offenses—the new Department of Defense policy should be implemented with little difficulty and is likely to win the support of most service personnel, as has been the case already with the lifting of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rules.
Today's film recommendation to Max Boot is 1997 "G.I. Jane" nand then he should watch David Mamet's tv series "The Unit". n nand then try to have a long talk with Rear Admiral Nora Tyson. Go Navy! n n
Mr Panetta's policy is correct, and long over due. n nThe hysterics who told us that integration of gays into our armed services would lead to our destruction, and theirs, have been utterly discredited. Gays have been serving since 1776. We simply declared it right and just to do so. The end of DADT has proceeded ably and well. The military handled it like the professionals they are. n nNow, other hysterics are braying about women in battle. n nWomen cannot serve on the front lines? Try telling that to the Israelis. Women have been serving, first in Haganah, since 1948. That is more than sixty years. n nBTW, gays have been serving openly in Israel since 1983. Thirty years, and counting. Try telling us that the Israeli Defense Forces lack skill, courage and capacity. No?
Are we so hard up for fighters that we must put the nurturers of our young in harms way. Has chivalry been stricken from society, are we so barbaric that we must use our fairer sex to fight our wars. If all this is true then God help this nation for we are headed for that dark pit called “HELL”. BTW Sec. Panetta is a disgrace to civilized manhood!!!
Panetta's policy is 1-illegal (there is a reason women are not subject to Selective Service registration) 2-pure social engineering and communism. Max Boot is a fool and so is anyone else in or out of uniform who thinks women in combat is going to lead to anything better than an utter and total defeat of the United States on the battlefield, the first time these women have to fight a real enemy, and not these pathetic gangs in turd world hell holes. The only reason these gangs have had as much success as they have, is because the same idiots who think women in combat roles is a good idea, are the ones who also handcuffed warfighting with Rules of Engagement which aide and abet our enemies.
Yeahhh… try telling that to the Israelis. n nBetter yet, try telling that to an Israeli woman serving her country. Today. On the front lines. And every day, since 1948. n nYou really need to get out more. n
Israeli women do not serve in front line combat units, idiot.
You are quite wrong. They have done so, many times, and quite famously as snipers, behind the lines, and in the Six Day War. n nDuring the Haganah era, even our own Dr Ruth served front line as a sniper. It is a long Israeli tradition.
Correctly, that would be spelled "you're". n nYour command of English appears to be on the same level as your command of history. Not as impressive as you may imagine.
Just go back to the mailbox and wait for Barry to send you a stimulus check, stalker.
Why are you so silly? And why do you disrespect our own women? n nMore than 150 American women have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan already. It is sad and contemptible that you hold 150 of our own service women in such disdain. n nTheir sacrifice was far, far greater than your own.
Shut up Barrack.
It's time for you to apologize to the 150 American women — patriots all — who gave their lives in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. n nYour contempt for their sacrifice is contemptible. n nIf you are a man, you will apologize to and in their memory. If you are not…
Sthufferin sthuckatash!!! It's time for you to report back to the mental facility, Daffy Duck.
Ahh, sure enough: you are not a man at all. You are, at best, a cartoon character. n nMeantime, stop disrespecting the 150 American women who made the supreme sacrifice for our country. They died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. n nThey gave their lives for us. You are, at best, an ingrate.
And your a psycho.
Well, we don't seem to be able to do anything about your bad manners, your ignorance of history, or your contempt for US servicewomen. n nPerhaps I can help you with your spelling. n nYou make the same mistake, childish and recurring: using 'your' instead of 'you're'. So, let me assist you to be taken more seriously by people with a good education. Ready? n n'Your' is a possessive; ie, your anger issues, your Zopiclone, your divorce, your estranged children. n n"You're" is what we call a contraction. Although it sounds like 'your', it is in fact a quite different word. n n"You're" is our contraction of two words: YOU and ARE; ie, "You're ill-mannered"; or, "You're an ingrate"; or, "You're going to get better, in time." n nYou're welcome!
YOU ARE A PSYCHO LUNATIC STALKER. Can ya read that Obamatard?
FO
"FO"? That's all you've got? Sheesh. n nTake it up with Dr Westheimer, and hundreds of other Israeli women who have served their country with tremendous courage and effect. n nWe have much to learn from IDF success and morale. Rather less to learn from you, it seems. Thanks for trying!
Listen dummy, your talking to an Israeli… now again, STFU and stop spreading Obama's lies. You know nothing about the IDF. Your a liar and an imposter. Shut, up.
Correctly, that would be "you're". Why is your spelling so childish? n nYou are not an Israeli. You were born in Iowa. From one of your own posts, here on the 18th: "Following Tobin's Elitist logic, we should never have been a nation at all." n n"We"? n n150 American servicewomen have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do you hold their sacrifice in such contempt?
So, your at DNC HQ, or Barry's basement blog room in the White House?
I am all cool with Women in combat units if they don't lower the standards for them. In other words, there aren't many women that could make it through Seal training, Ranger school or Special Forces school.
Boot really spins himself into circles trying to justify this decision. n n3 points: (1) I can virtually guarantee that standards will be lowered so that women can serve in combat units. There will be tremendous pressure to do so; (2) Boot describes the policy as follows: "[Panetta] is simply shifting the burden of proof by requiring the services to make compelling arguments as to why women should not serve in certain jobs instead of assuming they will be excluded." There is nothing simple about this and in fact this gets it exactly backwards – the burden of proof should be on those seeking to join combat units, not the other way around. The effect of this "shifting of proof" will be to make it very difficult to exclude women. Who in the military is going to want to bring that case when it's clearly disfavored? (3) Boot says nothing about psychological issues. The fact that some women might meet the physical standards (even if they aren't watered down), says nothing about whether they are equipped emotionally for combat roles. The vast majority are not. n nIt's hard to conclude this policy will do anything but weaken the military and our combat forces.
We should let those women know that because of this the draft exemption has no basis. I am thinking that all those feminists will soon panic as will the not so dedicated women who like the benefits of "equality" but not the downside.
This issue has come to the fore because of the difficulty the Pentagon has in filling their nquotas with qualified people to fight in endless stupid wars. Although I realize it is not going nto happen I know if we had a draft in force we would not get so many bellicose letters from nthe " warrior class". Mr Boot is a good case in point,a military expert who has never served, nAnd he has plenty of company,Hansen,the Kagans,for starters,just add all the chicken hawks nfor whom the use of force is their first,and often their only choice for settling disputes, n.How sweet is war for those who have never experienced it. nu
Once Garry Goldwater said: “I don’t care if solder is straight or not, as long as he know how to shoot straight.” It applies to women and gays in the military. It actually applies to anything. It is simple: if standards applied equally, the best boy or girl gets the job. It should not be any “affirmative policies” or we compromise the strength of the military.