Pentagon Will Open All Combat Roles to Women by Matthew Rosenberg and Dave Phillips, New York Times
In a historic change for the American military, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter on Thursday announced that the Pentagon will open all combat jobs to women.
“There will be no exceptions,” Mr. Carter said at a Pentagon news conference.
The groundbreaking decision overturns a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles, even though in reality women often found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Carter said that, after a three-year review, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations Command agreed that all combat positions should be open to qualified women.
Only the Marine Corps, he said, requested some exemptions.
But Mr. Carter said he overruled the Marines to open all combat positions to women because the military should operate under a common set of standards…
Comments
For Move Forward:
-If up to 70% of youth are unqualified to join the military for a variety -of reasons
Again, standards that are set by examining our requirements of today, which are set by our ability to meet our requirements based on current recruiting desires and and methods and current needs.
- why would we exclude 52% of the young population from registering for -the selective service?
Because they are women. We can meet our needs with men. Women can volunteer if they want.
-If standards exist to enter particular MOS for strength as they do for -intelligence and other aptitudes on the ASVAB, recruiters and assignments -personnel for draftees would recruit/assign on that basis
Assignments will be based on standards that are determined by needs.
- You may have a point about standards changing to fill requirements but -that point existed during the past decade when recruiters had to lower -standards to achieve numbers in some cases. It is not a gender exclusive -issue.
My point exactly. Thanks.
-In my daughter’s undergraduate college dorm room comprised largely but -not exclusively of fellow tennis players, two went on to become doctors, -one a pharmacist, one an accountant, two Congressional aides with one -later selling pharmaceuticals and the other becoming an ATF agent, and -similar accomplishments. We cannot ignore that kind of potential in the -military or in a draft.
Yes we can. We can and we have done so, successfully, for hundreds of years. I know and have known many women who are more capable than me and many men I know. I don't see this as relevant to my point, which is, we should not be relying on women to fight our wars for us. There is plenty of room for them in all of the services and they have and will contribute greatly. They should not be in combat units, and the logical extension of that - drafting women, is something I vehemently disagree with.
Your post seems to argue:
1. That this is a recruiting issue and we should widen the eligible pool to include women. I think it's wide enough and the decision to assign them to combat units is a decision to force women into combat and I disagree with that.
2. That standards will limit women participation in combat units. And my point is that standards will change and we will assign women to combat.
3. That we should not just ask men to bear the burden of combat, we should be fair and ask women to do the same. I find that repugnant.
4. That women are very capable. And I agree with that.
5. That women will be assigned according to standards and those that meet the higher standards will be able to "choose" combat MOSs and others will serve elsewhere. I disagree. Assignments are not choices. They are orders under the UCMJ. Standards will change.
I disagree, for a myriad of what I see as objective reasons, with the decision to assign women to combat units. Maybe I'm too old and set in my ways and society has moved beyond my attitudes. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, fine, if that's the policy, that's the policy.
The point I am trying to make is that this decision is not about equal opportunity for some, it is about assignment and orders for all. If we ever again go to war that has significant force on force combat, where casualty rates are high, this decision's natural logical extension to assign - that is, order women to combat units will be realized. I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think it is right. It's immoral, it's unethical. It's un everything and it's just plain wrong.
I don't lose sleep at night over things like this -- because they are beyond our control. Elections have consequences. They always have had consequences for good or ill on the military.
What keeps me up at night are the self-inflicted wounds.
An Army which has lost so much of it's ability to train and maintain itself in a band of excellence.
An Army which cannot execute large scale traditional warfare against a near-peer enemy.
An Army which continues to raise and promote successive year-groups of officers who not only are illiterate on the above topics, but are even unaware of what they don't know.
We've worked so hard on crushing the head of the Zero Defects Army that we have a Zero Accountability Army -- and no one of any importance seems to care.
4-star generals hold "solariums" with captains to find out where to take the institution.
We search in vain to find one senior leader (just one) who is authentic. Truly authentic. Yes, they are all very smart. Yes, they are all brilliant communicators. But is there one who is authentic? Is there one who is an idealist with unwavering integrity? Is there one who doesn't spin language and cares more about candor than "branding"? Cares more about communicating than messaging? Is there one who speaks truth and demands nothing but truth spoken back to him? Is there one losing sleep at night over the state of the force?
I have no problem with any policy decisions of the civilian leaders, just give me an Army led by a Patton or an Abrams. These are the men who will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat despite the cards handed to them by politics.
As per my thoughts on the thread "Ralph Peters on War," what seems to be missing here is an understanding of what the modern definition of "winning" actually is.
"Winning" today means the transformation of outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
And, from this perspective, and as I outline in my other two comments below, the opening of combat roles to American women appears to almost have been required.
Thus:
a. As we have pushed our radically progressive agenda on others (forcing them to abandon literally centuries of tried and proven ways of life, ways of governance and associated values, attitudes and beliefs).
b. Now, given our requirement to "set the example," this radically progressive agenda has come back to bite us literally own our own cultural ass.
This, as we now have had to consider similar abandonment of centuries-old (and equally logical?) customs and dictates; in this case, those related to the intelligence (or lack thereof) of having one's female members involved in, for example, the opening scenes -- and follow-on activities -- associated with "Saving Private Ryan"-like combat operations?
Thus, (a) from the perspective of the modern definition of "winning" outlined by me above and (b) its requirements to (c) better understand the soldiers' -- and the nation's -- dilemma today?
(Herein, not to suggest that your "sutler"-driven concept above is wrong; this, given the fact that "transforming outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines" could be considered to be a "sutler's dream?")
Let's face it gents, we live in an era where looking the part trumps playing the part. The time where where physical standards or tangible achievement mattered is gone. The cultural slide is most evident at the top, four star cops and fruit salad generals. Promotion is confused with achievement. The most important weapons on the E-Ring today are wet fingers in the political winds and a well-wrought budget. Difficult as it is to be cynical about the home team, it seems that keeping the game going has now become the end game. "Not winning" is the gift that keeps on giving for those folks in the military/industrial complex that never go in harm's way. The interests of sutlers are always at odds with the troops at risk. And today, the sutlers in DOD outnumber the warriors a thousand-to-one if you count contractors. The all-volunteer force is now the servant of a selfish nation, programs have become more important than people.
We need to look at these matters more from the standpoint of our radically progressive STRATEGY, NARRATIVE, POLITICAL OBJECTIVE and, in this regard, EXAMPLE.
As to these matters, and specifically re: our political objective of transforming outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines (and re: these matters our wishing to be seen as not only touting but also living our values) to consider the following from Secretary Kerry:
"No country can get ahead if it leaves half of its people behind. This is why the United States believes gender equality is critical to our shared goals of prosperity, stability, and peace, and why investing in women and girls worldwide is critical to advancing U.S. foreign policy."
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/03/207940.htm
So it appears that our national leaders determined that if the U.S./the West was going to "talk the talk" to others re: gender equality, then the U.S./the West was certainly going to have to "walk the walk."
Herein, with our butts hanging out -- re: gender equality -- in the most visible and proud aspect of our foreign policy projection, to wit: our military forces deployed overseas.
Thus, and re: STRATEGY, NARRATIVE, POLITICAL OBJECTIVE and EXAMPLE, to suggest that this current move makes perfect sense and was, pretty much, required?
This, if we wished to keep/maintain our credibility, and not be called a hypocrite, by those very populations that we are seeking to "transform." Yes?
Thus, should we require "modernization" by others, we certainly had to rid ourselves of one of the last vestiges of our own ancient traditions and customs?
(Practicality as to these matters -- for both "us" and for "them" and re: all these such "modernization"/"transformation" matters -- simply not entering into the picture/being pushed into the background by our such radically "progressive" agenda? An agenda which, in both the U.S./the West and elsewhere, finds itself having to, ultimately, deal with, and answer to, reality/wisdom/common sense? And having to admit that, re: such matters, the "old ways" -- for both we ourselves and for those that we seek to "transform" -- still seem to be valid/make better sense?)
My father (35 years and a Master Chief in the Navy) was unhappy when I joined the Marines. After he collected himself he came and told me about the real world. Something like, no one cares. You will be expendable. Some politician will make a decision to drop you somewhere and you'll get killed and if you get killed I could never face your mother again. It took some time, but I learned to understand his point of view.
The WSJ reports tonight that the White House is reviewing the draft in light of the new policy of combat assignments for women. It seems that the selective service may now start registering women.
I have a seven year old daughter. She's sharp. Skipped a grade already and performs at the top of her class. So far, she's pretty athletic. She's only seven and we'll see more in time.
I see the possibility that my daughter can get drafted, assigned (ordered under the UCMJ really -that's what an assignment is) to a combat arms unit, and dropped somewhere and killed at some politician's discretion. I find this troubling.
Ashton Carter seems to think this will increase his recruiting pool.
NBC NY lead the other night on the combat assignment for women policy as "the military strikes a blow against the glass ceiling".
I have four sons. I will support them and my daughter in their chosen endeavors. If my sons were to be drafted, assigned to combat units and faced what they had to face, I would accept that as a price we pay for who and what we are and want to be. I can't get there with my daughter.
I can't accept Carter's recruiting strategy. NBC news's nonsense makes me sick. I'm having trouble thinking about 1000 flag officers buying into this.
We're making a decision here and now to send women into combat for us. I cannot understand and I cannot support that.
My daughter will not go.
"Can you cite the number of hand-to-hand instances in these wars where one Soldier was by himself?"
No, but it easily runs into the dozens over the last 14 years. If you add in the number of times a Soldier had to use force to capture or restrain another person it easily runs into the hundreds.
I don't understand your point about "buddies being around". Is it "sure women will get their ass kicked, but some guy will be around to bail them out." Not a very convincing argument.
"Can that robotic dog be parachuted to carry your rucks and ammo/H2O/batteries?"
To quote Rumsfeld, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time"
I served in both Infantry and MI units, as both an 11 and 35 series. In the MI units the women performed just fine, unless there was a strenuous physical task at hand, and then their weakness showed.
Bottom line, combat units where brute force and endurance are paramount will be hurt by this decision, because regardless of all the rhetoric of standards being maintained, those units will be weaker and slower.
It's quite telling that I haven't heard any arguments to gender norm the physical fitness test.
<blockquote>"Are not guns the great size equalizer?"
Myth: Hand to hand combat is a thing of the past. Additionally, my M4 rifle didn't help me one bit when we rucked through the Hindu Kush for 3 days carrying well north of 100 lbs of crap. Combat is not a video game. It's not sitting behind a 50cal atop a gun truck. It's not a place for social experimentation.</blockquote>
Can you cite the number of hand-to-hand instances in these wars where one Soldier was by himself? I recall one in a book about the Battle of Fallujah but not many others where other buddies were not around. Do we read of many law enforcement instances (where hand-to-hand would be far more prevalent) where female cops have been killed hand-to-hand and no partner was around?
Perhaps given funds spent on troop disability for injuries carrying 100 lbs of “crap” we should do a cost-benefit analysis showing it would be cheaper long term to have robots carry that “crap” so you troops could carry just weapons/comms/sensors/body armor. Isn’t a buttoned-up Abrams or Bradley essentially a “video game” until dismount? Could not a woman “loader” backing up a notional autoloader operate remote ground and aerial sensors, drive, or serve as gunner or tank commander?
Are most women smaller targets? I wager that if studied, bigger men would be more frequent gunshot and shrapnel wound recipients because unlucky hits are more likely against bigger targets higher off the ground.
<blockquote>"Heck my wife stamped on my foot once with heels and despite being twice her weight/strength I was pretty incapacitated."
What a ridiculous statement. Before Ronda Rousey lost her first fight there were some that suggested she start fighting men. Some even said should could defeat Floyd Mayweather. Ludicrous! The last ranked male MMA fighter would destroy Rousey.</blockquote>
Would not most rare SF hand-to-hand occur with a disguised woman surprising a targeted man with a knife or stiletto heel attack? Why would you bring a fist or wrestling moves to a surprise knife fight? Yeah, bayonets and hand-to-hand among normal combatants would be pretty one-sided (same with 150lb man vs. 200+ lbs) but rare at best, again with strong likelihood of nearby buddies.
<blockquote>"We already have seen several women graduate from Ranger school."
I congratulate them, but the standards to graduate from Ranger school, or any other school reflect the MINIMUM required, and do not necessarily reflect what it takes to actually do the job well. I led a military intelligence platoon in the 82nd airborne. About a third of my platoon was female. All of them graduated airborne school, and all of them passed the physical fitness test (lower female standards mind you), yet when it came time to waddle from the pack shed to the aircraft for a jump carrying main chute, reserve, ruck, weapon, helmet, H20, etc., usually several women would fall back from the group. In other words, they couldn't keep up during a slow walk less than a quarter mile. For the male Soldiers, this never happened. If they can't keep up walking to the aircraft, how can I count on them when the shit REALLY gets hard? Do you think I can kick them out of the unit for this demonstrated weakness? Not a chance, because they met all of the PUBLISHED standards, but the real world requirements kicked their ass.</blockquote>
Are you planning once on the ground to walk anywhere with those parachutes? Can that robotic dog be parachuted to carry your rucks and ammo/H2O/batteries?
<blockquote>Lastly, it's interesting that the GOs who have spoken out since the decision was made talk about how we will be more capable by integrating women, yet I didn't hear any of them suggest integration prior to the decision. If the military will be better off, why hadn't any of the Chiefs suggested full integration? We all know why. This was a pure political decision by civilians that never served a day in uniform.</blockquote>
General Votel stated he made no attempt to seek exceptions for SF/SOF. Yes it was a civilian decision, but most of your stated objections were for MI units that already had women. I don’t believe you can show that we did poorly in your unit or any other units with women during these wars simply because they had women in them. Salute and drive on because there likely will be limited women in most combat arms where weaker upper body strength will be that big a deal. Most of them will be studdettes working harder than the average male to even get into and succeed in that unit.
"Are not guns the great size equalizer?"
Myth: Hand to hand combat is a thing of the past. Additionally, my M4 rifle didn't help me one bit when we rucked through the Hindu Kush for 3 days carrying well north of 100 lbs of crap. Combat is not a video game. It's not sitting behind a 50cal atop a gun truck. It's not a place for social experimentation.
"Heck my wife stamped on my foot once with heels and despite being twice her weight/strength I was pretty incapacitated."
What a ridiculous statement. Before Ronda Rousey lost her first fight there were some that suggested she start fighting men. Some even said should could defeat Floyd Mayweather. Ludicrous! The last ranked male MMA fighter would destroy Rousey.
"We already have seen several women graduate from Ranger school."
I congratulate them, but the standards to graduate from Ranger school, or any other school reflect the MINIMUM required, and do not necessarily reflect what it takes to actually do the job well. I led a military intelligence platoon in the 82nd airborne. About a third of my platoon was female. All of them graduated airborne school, and all of them passed the physical fitness test (lower female standards mind you), yet when it came time to waddle from the pack shed to the aircraft for a jump carrying main chute, reserve, ruck, weapon, helmet, H20, etc., usually several women would fall back from the group. In other words, they couldn't keep up during a slow walk less than a quarter mile. For the male Soldiers, this never happened. If they can't keep up walking to the aircraft, how can I count on them when the shit REALLY gets hard? Do you think I can kick them out of the unit for this demonstrated weakness? Not a chance, because they met all of the PUBLISHED standards, but the real world requirements kicked their ass.
Lastly, it's interesting that the GOs who have spoken out since the decision was made talk about how we will be more capable by integrating women, yet I didn't hear any of them suggest integration prior to the decision. If the military will be better off, why hadn't any of the Chiefs suggested full integration? We all know why. This was a pure political decision by civilians that never served a day in uniform.
Apologies to both you and Bill M for combining responses under him instead of separately. If you look at the response though, note about two paragraphs addressing his points and two addressing yours with a somewhat common theme of differentiating the exceptional from the average regardless of gender.
<blockquote>Once assignments are made on a gender neutral basis, they will be made on a gender neutral basis. Perfect example is the selective service, how many days passed between the announcement of blanket assignment eligibility and story about adding women to selective service registration.</blockquote>
If up to 70% of youth are unqualified to join the military for a variety of reasons, why would we exclude 52% of the young population from registering for the selective service? If standards exist to enter particular MOS for strength as they do for intelligence and other aptitudes on the ASVAB, recruiters and assignments personnel for draftees would recruit/assign on that basis.
<blockquote>Standards aren't immutable or absolute. There are numbers needed to fill requirements. There is a pool of eligibles that can be drawn upon to meet those numbers. Standards do and will adjust accordingly. For SOCCOM, for infantry, for artillery, for tanks, for truck drivers, for cooks, for boatswains, for admin clerks, for electronic maintenance techs and for everybody else.</blockquote>
You may have a point about standards changing to fill requirements but that point existed during the past decade when recruiters had to lower standards to achieve numbers in some cases. It is not a gender exclusive issue. With the exception of foot infantry in your list above, extraordinary strength and stamina do not seem that essential. Mech infantry and armor drive around with vehicles carrying the weight. Artillery might be strength-related with 100 lb. 155mm rounds but autoloaders and teamwork are workarounds.
Most MOS require varying degrees of intelligence and aptitude and women would appear up to task in those areas. The Marine unit test for instance took the average rather than the extraordinary woman who can meet higher physical standards. IIRC, 10% of Marine women are roughly comparable physically to the lower 50% of Marine men. If physical standards are maintained, it will continue to limit women in foot infantry, Ranger, and SF/SOF.
<blockquote>The FBI, the CIA, the DEA, the ATF cannot use the force of law to join people to their ranks. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines can.</blockquote>
Again, why should men be the only ones asked to bear war-time burdens, particularly with so many out of shape young men? Believe we are focusing too much on strength and trust me I’m plenty strong and proud of mine. But I was a 165 lb soccer athlete in high school who later evolved to 230 lbs of muscle through exercise. Men and women can achieve similar but physiologically relevant results through exercise if they are motivated and required by MOS requirements.
<blockquote>Maybe we've grown farther than I realize and we'll never need a draft again. Maybe there will never be an existential threat that will require large mobilizations. I'm not confident of that.</blockquote>
In my daughter’s undergraduate college dorm room comprised largely but not exclusively of fellow tennis players, two went on to become doctors, one a pharmacist, one an accountant, two Congressional aides with one later selling pharmaceuticals and the other becoming an ATF agent, and similar accomplishments. We cannot ignore that kind of potential in the military or in a draft.
The military, like most civilian jobs, requires intelligence more than brute strength and running/backpack stamina in most MOS to include some previously excluded combat arms MOS. Keep the training and acquisition physical standards high and those women able to meet standards will, with others choosing other MOS.
And I wrote nothing about many of the issues discussed/presented. I'm not sure how my comments got conflated with Bill M.'s.
Incidentally, I agree that women do have a place in SOCCOM, and I agree not a blanket role.
I write with a "first things" orientation. Once assignments are made on a gender neutral basis, they will be made on a gender neutral basis. Perfect example is the selective service, how many days passed btwn the announcement of blanket assignment eligibility and story about adding women to selective service registration.
Standards aren't immutable or absolute. There are numbers needed to fill requirements. There is a pool of eligibles that can be drawn upon to meet those numbers. Standards do and will adjust accordingly. For SOCCOM, for infantry, for artillery, for tanks, for truck drivers, for cooks, for boatswains, for admin clerks, for electronic maintenance techs and for everybody else.
There are many discrete and fine points to be argued. They're missing the big picture.
The FBI, the CIA, the DEA, the ATF cannot use the force of law to join people to their ranks. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines can.
Maybe we've grown farther than I realize and we'll never need a draft again. Maybe there will never be an existential threat that will require large mobilizations. I'm not confident of that.
We just made a decision that we will use women to fight our wars and I don't think it's a good one.
Bill M,
Wonder if both you and tjmc are mixing up the ability to be in the combat arms with being forced into them as a woman. Even if a draft was instituted, one doubts they would force women or grossly overweight men into combat arms. If they could meet the physical standards they could ask to see if they could cut it in that MOS. Many a fat teen has lost weight and gotten in shape to join the services and suspect a draft combined with some form of alternative national service could differentiate between the physically able and unable.
As for flag officers buying into this, nobody has commented on General Votel and his CSM’s video presentation which covers many of the issues that you and tjmc raise. Yes, there have been studies showing that women get injured more readily as he points out. Nevertheless, a woman with experience in the infantry could always branch transfer if injuries occurred and use that experience to rise in the ranks. Gen Votel also mentions past service of women in WWII illustrating that physical strength is not always the point. As you point out, a wily woman can find other ways of getting the job done. Heck my wife stamped on my foot once with heels and despite being twice her weight/strength I was pretty incapacitated (BTW, I have never hit her). Don’t forget that women serve in law enforcement to include the FBI, DEA, ATF and other government agencies like the CIA requiring teamwork to take down suspects. Are not guns the great size equalizer? As far as I know, isn’t the Army still about teamwork?
Reference base camps and their future and past role, Vietnam all-male units certainly used firebases the equivalent of today’s FOBs and COPs and women have been present in both for more than a decade in combat. The reality of such camps is a strong likelihood in the future both in Gray Zone conflict and all-out war rear areas and stability ops. If for instance we shared such camps in Kurd areas inside Syria and northern Iraq, can you envision any situation where the Russians, Iranians, Turks, or Iraqis would engage them? The same applies if such camps were in Baltic countries in gray zone conflict with the Russians or in the Philippines in island disputes with China. Unlike airfields and sea ports, dug in and HESCO-protected troops can withstand many missile attacks and other troops can occupy tactical assembly areas and dig in.
You mention cultural factors but aside from many Muslim areas, why should SF/SOF men be allowed to grow beards? Does that not culturally differentiate them from the rest of the Army? We already have seen several women graduate from Ranger school and many an Army/Marine gym has some very fit women. If women Soldiers dealt primarily with females in human domain situations, that would seem a major plus as would their ability to pose as a wife or potential flirter able to get close and inflict lethal damage with limited noise. General Votel indicated that physical standards will be maintained and he appears a possible choice for CENTCOM command and nothing he said in his video sounded politically correct.
I wouldn't separate the two Bill, if our objective is as you say imposing our values on others, then political correctness becomes a strategic end or goal for our country. The Nazis imposed a form of PC on the other end of the spectrum, as did the communists. In short, it means you will think/believe (or at least pretend you do) the way we tell you to think. Clearly it is not based on American values, so we are risk of going down a dangerous road in this regard.
Bill M.
As per my thought below, to see this step -- not as political correctness -- but, rather, as strategic; this, due to this such move being consistent with our values and consistent with our goal of working, via various ways and various means, to transform outlying states and societies more along modern western lines?
Of course, and as I also point out below, this could also be seen as strategic error; this, because of the increased distance this such move (women in combat roles) puts between (1) us and (2) those that we hope to bring into the fold?
I despise political correctness of all forms, while embracing respect for all (until someone proves they don't deserve it anymore based on their behavior). The majority of tests demonstrated that women are not equal to men in many combat arms positions, and yet DOD still decided to pursue this course of action. This indicates it was based on a political correctness agenda versus reason and pursuing equal opportunity. This also indicates political correctness trumped combat effectiveness concerns. Can women fly combat in combat? Most certainly, that requires skill not brute strength. Going to the other extreme, can women serve effectively in the infantry in prolonged, intense combat conditions? I think that will prove to be another issue altogether. We have confused our past 15 years of drive by COIN with large modern base camps as the character of all wars to come, yet the reality will likely prove to be quite different. I suspect we'll wish we have maintained the rigorous physical standards for combat arms, because frankly no amount of political correctness will change the reality of combat.
Done of the above is intended as a slight against women. From a special operations perspective (which is different from enduring, intense infantry combat), women have served honorably and bravely for decades. The now unclassified stories of women in the SOE and OSS operatives operating behind enemy lines during WWII are legendary, to include incidents where they killed Germans using neck breaks. Their courage and intelligence is not in question, at least not for me. I think they have always had a role in special operations. That doesn't mean they fit everywhere, or on every SOF mission.
I don't think they'll be a good generic fit in Army Special Forces or the Rangers, since both often come close to replicating the same arduous conditions infantry units have to endure in the field. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have women in Army Special Forces altogether, there are certainly missions where they would be prove to be highly valuable as a female green beret in any of our skill sets (communications, weapons, engineer, medical, intelligence). In other situations women won't be appropriate for cultural (the partners we're working with won't accept it) or due to exceptional arduous physical conditions. This is gets to a larger issue, do we have the flexibility to assign the right person to the right mission with our personnel system?
Bottom line, we're over 200 years overdue to get rid of all our racial, gender, and other biases. The military has often led the way in this effort, but that doesn't mean everyone is qualified or suited to do everything. Reason must trump political correctness, especially when it comes to national defense. I'll reserve judgment until this plays out for a couple of years. If we maintain standards then my concerns will prove to be unfounded, but seeing will be believing.
Given the United States' enduring political objective -- of transforming outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines -- might it have been determined that, re: this enduring political objective, the U.S./the West must be seen (especially by the populations in the Islamic states) to not only:
a. Talk the talk. But, also, to
b. Walk the walk and set the example?
Herein, the U.S./the West not wishing to put itself in a position to be called -- re: non-full gender integration --a hypocrite?
So to show its (the U.S./the West's) uncompromising commitment to "progress" and to the values that it seeks to impose on/inspire in others (for example: gender equality).
What better way to show such a commitment -- than to take the dynamic (propaganda?) step of opening all military occupations -- to include combat roles -- to women?
Thus, a profound statement made re: our commitment to our values?
Is this what this is really all about?
(Thus, something that we can point to and "sell" to the oppressed (???) women [our potential "natural allies"] in outlying states and societies?)
Thus to fight this/these 21st Century wars -- to transform outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines -- via other means and other ways?
(Hope it doesn't backfire. The potential -- re: this dramatic "in-your-face" cultural clashing step -- is certainly there; as we, via this very step, show ourselves to be even more abominably different than those that we hope to bring into the fold.)
One of the things I find most interesting about this continuing debate, and now this seemingly final development in that debate, is that in an era when people are hyper-sensitive about the cost of providing long-term care for wounded veterans, the DoD has made a decision that is scientifically proven without any grounds for dispute to produce many more incidental and chronic injuries and, potentially, fatalities. That's an undisputable issue, regardless of your take on the "one standard" argument, or all of the more nebulous issues about morale, unit cohesion, and such.
Has anyone checked the play habits of boys and girls on this playground? Bring that thought to High School, College, and professional sports. Boys and girls are different and not interchangeable. This move does not increase readiness of the active, guard, or reserve forces. War is the ultimate competition. I understand that about 70% of our population is not qualified to serve. I also understand there are about 3 divisions worth of people in the force non-deployable. There is a budget crunch. There is ordered downsizing. And, now the girls are going to fix it! This move is not smart.
The fourteenth century Mongol conqueror Timur reportedly declared it was better to be in right place at the right time on the battlefied with ten men than in the wrong place at the wrong time with ten thousand men. In light of Secretary Carter's announcement today, Timur would have to update his axiom to include women. Whether the citizenry of the United States recognizes the consequences of its increasingly idle male population ceding responsibility for defending the country to an increasingly feminized military is unclear.
Cheers, RJP http://goo.gl/bMZIS