Panetta lifts ban on women in combat

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,466
27,311
898
Seattle
#1
AP sources: Panetta opens combat roles to women

By LOLITA C. BALDOR | Associated Press – 1 hr 59 mins ago



WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

A senior military official says the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer.

The official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15. The announcement on Panetta's decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to units on the front lines.

Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel.
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-pa...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

Might as well. It's not as if a shit load of women are not dying in combat anyway. And it's not like it's any better keeping them to the rear in wars with no front lines.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,777
1,343
628
#2
This will not end well. I wonder how long before the first lawsuit when a woman washes out of SF selection, and they start reducing the requirement even further to make it more "fair." SF selection has been gutted since 9/11 as is just to get more bodies into the line units.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
14,878
4,416
678
South Jersey
#3
Better get those harassment and **** charge papers ready.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,466
27,311
898
Seattle
#4
Women in combat: Will they have to register for the draft?

That may be a difficult question from a societal standpoint, but the answer is straightforward, according to a legal analysis. On Thursday, the Pentagon will lift its ban on women in combat.

By Anna Mulrine | Christian Science Monitor – 2 hrs 37 mins ago


Now that the Pentagon is lifting its ban on women in combat, does this mean that women could potentially be drafted, too?

And as a practical matter: When women turn 18, will they now need to register, as men do, so that they can be conscripted in the event of a World War III, or any military emergency where the US government decides it needs troops quickly?

It’s a thorny question, raising what may be a difficult prospect societally. But the legal implications are obvious, analysts argue.

“The answer to that question is clearly yes,” says Anne Coughlin, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville. “The legal argument is clear: If it comes to that kind of wrenching emergency where we have to press young people into service, there is no legal justification for saying that men alone need to shoulder that burden.”

The wars of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan have been fought by an all-volunteer force, since the US military discontinued the draft in 1973. Males between the ages of 18 and 25, however, are still required to register for the Selective Service.

Once the combat exclusion policy is lifted, “My belief is that if we open up combat arms to women, even on a voluntary basis, if there is a draft, we should be able to force women into those positions,” says retired Col. Peter Mansoor, a professor of military history at the Ohio State University in Columbus and a former US Army brigade commander who served two tours in Iraq.

“If women are acceptable to serve in combat, they are acceptable to serve whether they volunteer or not. You can’t have the frosting on the cake and not the cake underneath,” he says.

Legal precedent backs this up, adds Professor Coughlin, who has advised plaintiffs in lawsuits to overturn the Pentagon’s combat exclusion policy – in particular a US Supreme Court case in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg. In that suit, men argued that the draft is unconstitutional because only men are required by law to register. The Supreme Court rejected the premise of lawsuit.

“The court ruled that the Selective Service process is designed to assemble combat-ready people, and right now women are excluded from combat arms,” Coughlin says. “Therefore they can’t participate in the very thing that the draft is for. Hence, it’s appropriate and constitutional to continue to exclude women from the draft.”

Yet in overturning combat exclusion for women, “The male-only draft falls as well, no question about it,” she adds.

Critics of women in combat argue that culturally, the prospect of women being drafted might make the country reluctant to go to war.

To that, Professor Mansoor says, “It should be: That’s exactly the debate the country needs to have.”

But while the notion of women being drafted “may add some measure of hesitancy to the decision, I don’t see it as swinging the decision,” he says.

Even so, “Congress and the president should agonize over going to war. Questions of war should be difficult,” Mansoor adds. “They should not be as easy as they’ve been in the past 10 years.”
http://news.yahoo.com/women-combat-register-draft-225900518.html
 

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,107
3,827
563
#5
They'll be regular troops most of the time, but 3 days a month, SEALs on crack.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#6
I hope they're trained how to use their last bullet as opposed to getting captured by the muslims
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,777
1,343
628
#7
I hope they're trained how to use their last bullet as opposed to getting captured by the muslims
This has always been a major reason why I don't think women should be in front line roles. The risks that come with their capture in current conflict are drastically worse than what a man would face.

The other problem is what I hinted at earlier - when a woman washes out of a more elite training program (Rangers, SF, Force Recon, etc), and raises hell because it was "discriminatory" or "unfair", it's going to open up serious potential for weakening that same program. SF selection is supposed to be hard (and used to be much harder).
 

Wrecktum

Tounge puncher of fart boxes
Jun 29, 2006
4,337
1,437
563
Cervix spelunking
#8
Yea nothing like a little spoils of war for the muzzies. They love their ****.
 

DiggerNick

Well-Known Member
Donator
Oct 9, 2012
7,747
4,616
258
Your sister's underwear drawer
#9
I heard someone make a good point in that male soldiers are so much more fucked-up when a female soldier dies, which is why so many of them are opposed to women serving on the front lines.

Call that chauvinistic if you like but the way society has wired us has always been 'women and children first'. Imagine being in a firefight and seeing some broad's head blown off. How do you come back from that?

Not to mention (as was said before) about what those filthy savages would do to one of they captured her.

Bad idea.
 

Wrecktum

Tounge puncher of fart boxes
Jun 29, 2006
4,337
1,437
563
Cervix spelunking
#10
Well it would be a good way to get information from soldiers as well. Torture a broad in front of some men and they will do or say anything to make it stop.
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
15,698
3,825
328
#11
Panetta's parting gift to the libs.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,400
36,422
628
In a porn tree
#12
Better get a telescope, because you're going to need it to see the number of PTSD cases that are about to rocket off the charts.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,466
27,311
898
Seattle
#13
This has always been a major reason why I don't think women should be in front line roles. The risks that come with their capture in current conflict are drastically worse than what a man would face.
There are lots of reasons I can see for not wanting women in combat, but this is no longer one of them. Like I said in the first post, there are no front lines in war anymore. Women in support positions are nearly as likely to be killed or captured as front line soldiers.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,777
1,343
628
#15
There are lots of reasons I can see for not wanting women in combat, but this is no longer one of them. Like I said in the first post, there are no front lines in war anymore. Women in support positions are nearly as likely to be killed or captured as front line soldiers.
Sorry, but no. While you're right that you are potentially in danger anywhere in a country like Afghanistan, you're in significantly more danger when you're out kicking in doors than sitting in the FOB manning a computer or radio, or fixing a vehicle. This is especially true in SOF elements, since much of their time is spent in remote areas with little to no immediate ground support available.
 

DanaReevesLungs

I can keep rhythm with no metronome...
Donator
Jun 9, 2005
9,134
2,535
681
Louisiana
#16
There are lots of reasons I can see for not wanting women in combat, but this is no longer one of them. Like I said in the first post, there are no front lines in war anymore. Women in support positions are nearly as likely to be killed or captured as front line soldiers.
Purely a guess here, but I'm taking it you've never even considered, much less served in the military?
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,466
27,311
898
Seattle
#17
Purely a guess here, but I'm taking it you've never even considered, much less served in the military?
Since my uninformed statement, I have done actual research. I retract my ignorant statement. Apparently there has been about 2100 deaths in Afghanistan, 1700 were combat deaths, 400 support and civilian contractors.
 

Stig

Wackbag's New Favorite Heel
Jul 26, 2005
80,680
4,436
558
NH
#18
When retreating we can throw bitches at the enemy