Military Commission Recommends Changes on Women in Combat

[nsplayr]

Originally saw this here.

Here's the text from a related story that was easier to copy and paste:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Women, who make up some 14 percent of the armed forces, should finally be permitted to serve fully in front-line combat units, a military advisory panel says.

The call by a commission of current and retired military officers to dismantle the last major area of discrimination in the armed services could set in motion another sea change in military culture as the armed forces, generations after racial barriers fell, grapples with the phasing out of the ban on gays serving openly.

This latest move is being recommended by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago. The panel was to send its proposals to Congress and President Barack Obama.

It is time "to create a level playing field for all qualified service members," the members said Friday.

Opponents of putting women in combat question whether they have the necessary strength and stamina. They also have said the inclusion of women in infantry and other combat units might harm unit cohesion, a similar argument to that made regarding gays. And they warn Americans won't tolerate large numbers of women coming home in body bags. Those arguments have held sway during previous attempts to lift the ban.

Congress recently stripped the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly, and the Navy changed its rules over the last year to allow women to serve on submarines for the first time. Women are barred from certain combat assignments in all the services but face the broadest restrictions in the Army and Marines.

Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine captain and executive director of the advocacy group Service Women's Action Network, said the prohibition on women in combat "is archaic, it does not reflect the many sacrifices and contributions that women make in the military, and it ignores the reality of current war-fighting doctrine."

Although thousands of American women have served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and been exposed to great danger — 134 of them have been killed — they have been largely restricted to combat support jobs such as medics or logistical and transportation officers.

Defense policy prohibits women from being assigned to any unit smaller than a brigade whose primary mission is direct combat on the ground.

The new report says that keeping women out of combat posts prohibits them from serving in roughly 10 percent of Marine Corps and Army occupational specialties and thus is a barrier to advancement.

"The Armed Forces have not yet succeeded in developing leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve," said the report. "Minorities and women still lag behind white men in terms of number of military leadership positions."

Of the roughly 2.2 million troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 255,000 have been women, said Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez.

Supporters of the change say women essentially have been in combat for years, even if they are nominally removed from it.

"It's something whose time has come," said Lory Manning of the Women's Research and Education Institute. She said ending the ban would be "a logical outcome of what women have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Army and Marines have been essentially ducking the policy."

She said, for example, that military officials have employed terms of art to skirt the ban, for example "attaching" women to a combat unit instead of "assigning" them.

The new report says there has been little evidence that integrating women into previously closed units or military occupations has damaged cohesion or had other ill effects. It says a previous independent report suggested that women serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan "had a positive impact on mission accomplishment."

Defense leaders have said they see the change coming someday. For example, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in September that he expects women to be let into special operations forces eventually, and in a careful, deliberate manner.

The advisory commission recommends a phased-in approach. The Army is doing its own internal study of women in combat as well.

Pentagon figures show that as of Jan. 3, 110 women had been killed in the war in Iraq compared with about 4,300 men. In the Afghanistan campaign, 24 women have been killed compared with more than 1,400 men.

Lainez said the department will review the recommendations when the report is delivered.

But regardless of what becomes of the policy, she noted that women will continue to be drawn into combat action, "situations for which they are fully trained and equipped to respond."

The website to the commission and its actual report isn't loading correctly, but the link to it is here.

Edited January 15, 2011 by nsplayr

[tac airlifter]

Until the male and female PT test is the same, I can't take seriously any discussions of equal jobs for men and women.

[Learjetter]

Until the male and female PT test is the same, I can't take seriously any discussions of equal jobs for men and women.

Agreed: universal PT standards for all services. Specialties keep their enhancements. Any person who passes gets to play.

But, no special considerations either.

[Champ Kind]

Until the male and female PT test is the same, I can't take seriously any discussions of equal jobs for men and women.

Wouldn't that mean that my maximum waist size would be less??

[MoonDawg]

Wouldn't that mean that my maximum waist size would be less??

The bump from 32 to 35 gave me ~8 points back!

[Tank]

Wouldn't that mean that my maximum waist size would be less??

Well I'm screwed then!

[Whitty]

Until the male and female PT test is the same, I can't take seriously any discussions of equal jobs for men and women.

No shit

[Guest Scooby]

What exactly are the front lines these days?

Are women forbidden from serving anywhere in Afghanistan? Honest question...

[nsplayr]

What exactly are the front lines these days?

Are women forbidden from serving anywhere in Afghanistan? Honest question...

Not as far as I know...but I'm not army/marines so it's possible that they weren't allowed in the initial push into Marja or circumstances like that. I think that was one point in the commission's report; since there aren't really front lines anymore and since commanders are currently skirting the rules by "attaching" rather than "assigning" women to units with dangerous missions it kinda made the rules seem unnecessary. There are women on PRTs and other units that are out there knees deep in the Afghanistan/Iraq populations.

For my part I think if a woman can perform a job adequately then she should be allowed to do it. If that involves lifting heavy things, rucking for miles, dragging a full-grown man to safety, then so be it. I don't think PFT scores are exactly indicative of combat performance or tasks, however, I do think it's BS that their run times are so much slower. A little slower at the top end, maybe, but honestly the max passing run time for women is 16:22 vs 13:32 for men @ <30 years old...really? If you can't run a mile and a half in less than 16 minutes you should be thrown out immediately; I can probably hop on one foot that fast.

Edited January 16, 2011 by nsplayr

[tac airlifter]

I don't think PFT scores are exactly indicative of combat performance or tasks

Yea, neither do I; I was just using the PFT to make a broader point that "equality" should start in training before we discuss implementation in combat.

[nsplayr]

Yea, neither do I; I was just using the PFT to make a broader point that "equality" should start in training before we discuss implementation in combat.

Yea, definitely. If they can't train with the boys they can't fight with the boys, simple as that. If then can then have at it.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

What exactly are the front lines these days?

Are women forbidden from serving anywhere in Afghanistan? Honest question...

It's not about proximity to the threat, or whether you even engage the threat. Women are doing just that in various airframes as we speak. It's about the MISSION of the infantry, etc. I was Army National Guard for 8 years. No, I'm not going to tell you what it was like to be in the infantry because I wasn't in the infantry. But I did get a little taste of it, and I knew people who were in the infantry...after all, the Army is infantry-centric.

I'd have no problems if a woman can ruck a 80+ lb rucksack along for 15-20 miles with an M249 and all the ammo that goes with it. I did something similar as an enlisted engineer...although it was more like 50 lb rucks and I carried an M60 and associated ammo/gear. It sucked, and we only played "infantry" for a day or two. I was a 19-20 year old back then, I could do 70ish pushups and ran the 2 mile run in 14 minutes. But doing that kind of mission was physically intense, and we weren't even doing full-up infantry stuff.

Honestly, I think there just aren't very many women that could do it. I don't mean shoot a weapon and hit a target. I mean live in the mud on very little sleep, carry a ruck that weighs almost as much as they do, and tote around a weapon that could consist of anything from an M4 all the way to an M249 or even an AT-4. That shit isn't light.

As it is, women are allowed in pseudo-combat jobs, like MPs and the like. That's fine, because although those units engage the enemy, their mission doesn't entail them being in the field for weeks at a time and having to carry everything they need to live and shoot with for that time.

[lost]

Honestly, I think there just aren't very many women that could do it. I don't mean shoot a weapon and hit a target. I mean live in the mud on very little sleep, carry a ruck that weighs almost as much as they do, and tote around a weapon that could consist of anything from an M4 all the way to an M249 or even an AT-4. That shit isn't light.

As it is, women are allowed in pseudo-combat jobs, like MPs and the like. That's fine, because although those units engage the enemy, their mission doesn't entail them being in the field for weeks at a time and having to carry everything they need to live and shoot with for that time.

I think Huey pretty much summed it up right there. As a former grunt, turned aviator I can say that the Infantry world is a special place in the Army and MC. There are so many variables that go into making a unit effective I can not see how this would help at all. I am also not sure why they keep thinking that all people are created equal, not all men can or want to do that job even.

Well heck starship troopers here we come though, co-ed showers...well only if they're hot

Edited January 16, 2011 by lost

[ASUPilot]

I had drinks last night with a couple from Berkeley, and they are outstanding, smart cats. As one wold expect, they are quite liberal (which I'm cool with) and the topic of women in combat came up. The wife described herself as a feminist and asked me if I thought women should have equal rights. Naturally, I said yes...and so should blacks, Mexicans, Asians...everyone, etc. She proceeded to inform me that I too was a feminist. Now, those of you who know me probably find that as humorous as I did. As I marinated on her comment for a moment I concluded that she, or anyone for that matter, can label me anything they like if it makes them feel better because personally, I don't care about labels. I was astoundingly (to her) firm in my position that if women want the right to fair play then there needs to be one set of standards, period. One set of standards for aptitude (oh, boy, you should have seen her face) and one set of physical standards.

If we're talking combat, war, I'm uninterested in the obvious physiological differences between men and women, and I find the concept of quotas abhorrent. One standard, for everyone, and you either make it or you don't. From my limited exposure to the Army and Marines as an ALO (2007-2010), this is the ONLY way it'll work. There have to be some bada$$ women out there who are up to the challenge. I know I certainly don't want to do it. Sitting in the field with the Army begged the question: why would any woman want a part of this? If she can meet the equal standard she can have it.

The discourse was great and I enjoyed the sparing. But at the end of the day, any of us who have been around the block for a while (I'm nearing 37), especially in the military, know that despite all the liberal, PC-cries for gender equality, that integrating women into front-line, combat maneuver units will be a colossal DISASTER, period. Putting women on submarines will also irreparably damage the Navy. When will this country learn that social experiments have no place in the military? And for progressive (certainly not a negative connotation) thinkers out there, please don't refute my claims by snatching the low hanging fruit by saying "well, integrating blacks into the military initially faced severe opposition." That's apples and oranges. I ended with saying the world is just a little more complicated than rainbows, puppy dogs and unicorns...long live Berkeley. I'm sure they silently thought I was a baboon...I suppose I've been thought of as worse...

Cheers

Edited January 16, 2011 by ASUPilot

[Prosuper]

If they open up the infantry will they make them also sign up for selective service ( the draft)on their 18th birthday before they can apply for anything with the word Federal in front of it. Yes I am for equal opertunity but also equal standards. Equal standards for any AFSC or MOS.

[BQZip01]

PFT measures your medical FITNESS, not your capabilities. A fit woman should not meet the standards of a male and vice versa...

BUT

But your PFT should not measure your capability to do your job. If anyone (male or female) cannot do the job they are assigned/volunteered for, then they need to work harder at it or find a new job! You may be able to max the PT test, but if you cannot lift a zodiac with your teammates or haul one of them 1.5 miles on your back, then you don't need to be a SEAL. I will be honest, I don't really care about gender (or even homosexuality). I care whether you can do your job.

[tac airlifter]

PFT measures your medical FITNESS, not your capabilities.

Noted. However, the fact that fitness standards in training are different with respect to gender is an institutional recognition that capabilities (and consequently, physical expectations) are different. And the PFT measures your physical fitness, not your medical fitness; you know what the "P" stands for. Furthermore, males are expected to far exceed the simple PFT standards as a prerequisite to even beginning training for most of the front line door kicker types. I just took my PFT with some TACPs and the one dude who didn't get a 100 was mercilessly mocked by the others and given remedial physical training and made to retake the test in a month! And the guy got a 97!

My point is, equality means one standard and that standard should be tested CONUS before it's implemented in Logar. Before we begin talking about which girls can play with the big boys in combat, we need to at least have a common standard in training. The teams are not a misogynistic boys club, they are a meritocracy and if chicks can truly hack a 20 mile ruck march in full combat load followed by a compound assault and carrying a 220 lbs. wounded dude to safety on zero sleep at high altitude in the snow..... Ok. But it might be smarter to see if she can compete using our PFT scores before she gets to that point.

[Guest Crew Report]

Noted. However, the fact that fitness standards in training are different with respect to gender is an institutional recognition that capabilities (and consequently, physical expectations) are different. And the PFT measures your physical fitness, not your medical fitness; you know what the "P" stands for. Furthermore, males are expected to far exceed the simple PFT standards as a prerequisite to even beginning training for most of the front line door kicker types. I just took my PFT with some TACPs and the one dude who didn't get a 100 was mercilessly mocked by the others and given remedial physical training and made to retake the test in a month! And the guy got a 97!

My point is, equality means one standard and that standard should be tested CONUS before it's implemented in Logar. Before we begin talking about which girls can play with the big boys in combat, we need to at least have a common standard in training. The teams are not a misogynistic boys club, they are a meritocracy and if chicks can truly hack a 20 mile ruck march in full combat load followed by a compound assault and carrying a 220 lbs. wounded dude to safety on zero sleep at high altitude in the snow..... Ok. But it might be smarter to see if she can compete using our PFT scores before she gets to that point.

The TACP's I went the NCO Academy with wouldn't max out the PFT just due to their waist size. You must have some skinny TACP's there.

[tac airlifter]

The TACP's I went the NCO Academy with wouldn't max out the PFT just due to their waist size. You must have some skinny TACP's there.

Good job seeing a single tree in the forest bro. FWIW in my age group, we only need a 35" waist to max the new test. You must have some fatty's at the NCO academy if you think that's an issue.

[Guest]

However, the fact that fitness standards in training are different with respect to gender is an institutional recognition that capabilities (and consequently, physical expectations) are different.

Separate, but equal. I guess that is ok for some things.

[nsplayr]

Separate, but equal. I guess that is ok for some things.

I hope we can all agree that the PFT standards are a joke...really, a waist measurement? Nothing to measure power, only muscular and aerobic endurance?

Anyways, if women want to play in the big leagues of ground combat there should be one standard that's a true measure of what's needed in combat. For the other 99.5% of women who want to be in the military but not in the infantry, they can have whatever standards they want.

[tac airlifter]

I hope we can all agree that the PFT standards are a joke...really, a waist measurement? Nothing to measure power, only muscular and aerobic endurance?

Anyways, if women want to play in the big leagues of ground combat there should be one standard that's a true measure of what's needed in combat. For the other 99.5% of women who want to be in the military but not in the infantry, they can have whatever standards they want.

Bingo.