Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

[nsplayr]

1. Pick a party line and stick to it

2. You can't have it both ways

You can say "I believe in X with certain exceptions," absolutely. I'm not so ideologically wedded to the idea that this is the right policy that I'm ruling out the idea that some exceptions are warranted.

Why? Do we really need our women on the front lines?

The right question to ask is why shouldn't they have the chance to try? There should be some overriding, unchangeable reason to prevent something like basic equality of opportunity. Like someone is innocent until proven guilty, any one person should have the same basic rights and freedoms as any other person until there is a proven need to restrict them.

Maybe you can argue that "proven need" has been established by whatever reasons were cited when the policy restricting women from ground combat was originally enacted, obviously the Joint Chiefs and SECDEF believe things have changed that invalidate those original reasons.

Edited January 26, 2013 by nsplayr

[Fuzz]

The right question to ask is why shouldn't they have the chance to try? There should be some overriding, unchangeable reason to prevent something like basic equality of opportunity. Like someone is innocent until proven guilty, any one person should have the same basic rights and freedoms as any other person until there is a proven need to restrict them.

Because we are fucking broke, and don't need to throw money at programs that we don't need, the military isn't suffering a manning shortage or being hurt by not having women. We are in the middle of two wars, with our resources and funding being cut, now is not the time to try to change shit. If this were the '90s where we weren't at war and overstretched then sure try to integrate them, run the trails see if they can hack it. Problem is this is going to be politically dictated, and it will probably result in people getting wounded and killed.

obviously the Joint Chiefs and SECDEF believe things have changed that invalidate those original reasons.

You act like they are objective people not political appointees.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Scaredfuzz21

[nsplayr]

Because we are fucking broke, and don't need to throw money at programs that we don't need...

How does this cost any money?

...the military isn't suffering a manning shortage or being hurt by not having women.

For me at least, this isn't driven by an operational need, if it was we would have done it long ago. I mean, there was a female sniper in Stalingrad with 50+ kills if I remember my history correctly, so if we really needed more grunts, women would already be grunts.

It's driven by values and putting value on both equality of opportunity as well as on the contributions women are already making in fairly "front-line" positions. Observations about how women were already on the battlefield were the very things cited by both Panetta and Dempsey when discussing why they supported the new policy. Dempsey talked about how in 2003 when he was a division commander he was riding around Iraq and his turet gunner was a woman and he was very surprised; that was 10 years ago.

We are in the middle of two wars with our resources and funding being cut, now is not the time to try to change shit

Which two wars are those? I'm counting OEF and a few odds and ends. Regardless, that's such a tired excuse. "We're so busy, we'll do the right thing later!" I get it if you don't think it's the right thing now or ever, but are you trying to argue that if we were not so operationally busy that it'd be ok, but since we are it's a no-go? That's a dumb argument IMHO, you either think it's a good policy or not and if it's a good policy waiting around to implement it until our open-ended war with al-Qaeda is "over" doesn't really make a lot of sense. I mean, if Afghanistan winds down by 2014 as planned should we suddenly go ahead and give this a try?

You act like they are objective people not political appointees.

Obviously they have their own opinions just like any person. And they were both nominated by the President so I'm sure they're not going to massively contradict him. However, I also believe people stand up for things they believe in and here they are, our top two leaders (DOD civ and mil) supporting this so I'm gonna take them for their word that they support it and have spent time thinking about why they're doing it and the implications.

Edited January 26, 2013 by nsplayr

[Learjetter]

....However, I also believe people stand up for things they believe in and here they are, our top two leaders (DOD civ and mil) supporting this so I'm gonna take them for their word that they support it and have spent time thinking about why they're doing it and the implications.

This, kids, is called drinking the kool-aid.

[RASH]

This, kids, is called drinking the kool-aid.

With a firehose as a straw...

[Azimuth]

How does this cost any money?

So are female trainees going to shack up with male trainees? Probably not, you're going to have to build new dorms/convert older dorms...which costs money.

[Fuzz]

Not to mention the cost of just sending them to these schools for the high number of wash outs, I mean the Marines have 100% wash out, granted there were only 3, but doesn't anyone think that the trend will change?

[disgruntledemployee]

The right question to ask is why shouldn't they have the chance to try?

No its not. Any dipshit knows the fighting military force is not the Post Office, the Welfare office of HHS, or your local sherriff's department. Why would any American want its women on the front lines? Perhaps you, like I did, visualized yourself on a Higgins Boat about to storm the beaches in Normandy as depicted in Saving Private Ryan, and thought Jesus H Christ, that was pure fucking hell. Now put 10 ladies in that boat with 40 other men. And before you get all Debating Debbie on me that we don't storm beaches anymore, the point is to visualize real war with women. War is tough enough as it is, I really don't think we need to complicate the issue with gender just so some people can get a promotion.

I asked my dad (been in real war) what he thought. He said it was one of the stupidest things he's ever heard of.

Out

Lastly, if you feel that the leaders at the top didn't cherry pick the data to support what they were ordered to do, you're naive.

[Jughead]

How does this cost any money?

Seriously?

[Fuzz]

Seriously?

Remember you are talking to a liberal, they are a little slow on the uptake when it comes to government finances. (i.e. $16 Trillion in debt doesn't equal a spending problem or just borrow more money if you don't have enough)

[nsplayr]

No its not. Any dipshit knows the fighting military force is not the Post Office, the Welfare office of HHS, or your local sherriff's department.

It is the United States Government all the same. I want my government representing my values, and I value equality of opportunity and don't support limitations based on gender or sexual orientation or race or whatever. That's the root of it and why I think it's the right thing to do.

If someone can't make it, whatever "it" is, let it be because they can't meet the objective, necessary standards rather than because of what is between their legs or who they wanna shack up with in their free time or what color their skin is.

And before you get all Debating Debbie on me that we don't storm beaches anymore, the point is to visualize real war with women.

Women have been fighting in "real wars" since "real wars" began. I have absolutely no problem imagining them in "real wars" since it's already happened. Is a "fake war" like the ones on movie sets?

Remember you are talking to a liberal, they are a little slow on the uptake when it comes to government finances. (i.e. $16 Trillion in debt doesn't equal a spending problem or just borrow more money if you don't have enough)

Am I talking to a lieutenant perhaps? They're a little slow on the uptake when it comes to everything.

I don't know why I'm continuing to debate the merits of this policy, it's happening/happened. It's on the military to execute it well so GL if you're in a position to do that. For those opposed, enjoy standing athwart history yelling "stop!" Let me know how that works out for ya.

Edited January 27, 2013 by nsplayr

[Fuzz]

or who they wanna shack up with in their free time.

You missed his point, he's talking about facilities, which currently house all males, so where are the females going to sleep/shower?

And aren't I talking to a lieutenant? They're a little slow on the uptake when it comes to anything.

I've heard that about Navs also, but roger that I'll stand by for any majors or above to validate my point.

[HuggyU2]

Well,... since they want "gender equality" in combat jobs, I'm sure Secretary Panetta & Company will require that women begin to register for the draft.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Huggyu2

[Azimuth]

Am I talking to a lieutenant perhaps? They're a little slow on the uptake when it comes to everything.

UFB, is that all you got?

[matmacwc]

Yaaaaawn. Same PT scores, register for the draft, I'm over it. Same thing was tried 30 years ago, it didn't pass muster then for these reasons, it will not now. Waiting for Nsplayers 60 page rebuttal.

[nsplayr]

Well,... when since they want "gender equality" in combat jobs, I'm sure Secretary Panetta & Company will require that women begin to register for the draft.

Sounds good to me, although that's probably on Congress to change that in particular.

UFB, is that all you got?

I've never heard anyone around here that I fail to fully argue my points, I'll take that as constructive criticism.

It's a harmless jab since he's a f*cking LT just like I'm a f*cking nav. Har har, never heard that one before.

Waiting for Nsplayers 60 page rebuttal.

And here's Azimuth complaining I'm not bringing my all to the conversation! You guys should talk and decide if you want more or less debate. Or I can just deicide that's enough; like I said, the policy is done and if anyone wants to oppose it GL with that position, you will be OBE.

[lloyd christmas]

"Any dipshit knows the fighting military force is not the Post Office, the Welfare office of HHS, or your local sherriff's department."

It is the United States Government all the same.

No it is not.

NS, are you the author of this little gem?

I am an American Airman. I am a Warrior. I have answered my Nation’s call. I am an American Airman. My mission is to Fly, Fight, and Win. I am faithful to a Proud Heritage, A Tradition of Honor, And a Legacy of Valor. I am an American Airman. Guardian of Freedom and Justice, My Nation’s Sword and Shield, Its Sentry and Avenger. I defend my Country with my Life. I am an American Airman. Wingman, Leader, Warrior. I will never leave an Airman behind, I will never falter, And I will not fail.

We are not all warriors. Period. I am not a warrior. I am a Herc guy. I take warriors to work. I understand my place and my mission.

This "warrior" errrr "equality" culture the AF has created has been one of the biggest jokes I have ever seen. Just look at finance, personnel and medical. They run the show and have the Bronze Stars to prove it.

Edited January 27, 2013 by lloyd christmas

[Wolf424]

They run the show and have the Bronze Stars with V device to prove it.

FIFY, otherwise you end up with this:

[KState_Poke22]

Being able to serve in the military or serve in front line combat roles is not a right. Bottom line. It is a privilege and the purpose of having a military isn't to make sure no ones feelings are hurt by being left out, the purpose of a military is to defend your f*cking country, defend its interests abroad, and (in the case of our military especially) whether right or wrong to help defend and help our allies across the world. If an over arching policy hurts combat effectiveness (like women in front line combat roles has been shown to do in many examples) then it should not be enacted. Period.

[TreeA10]

If history proves correct, the drive for equality of opportunity will shift via Presidential and Congressional pressure on our upper leadership for equality of outcome. Social justice is far more important than putting others lives at risk.

[Helo Kitty]

I'm curious to know what drove this decision. Do we not have enough front line combat troops? If we're experiencing a huge shortfall filling combat capabilities and women is the only viable stopgap; then I support. In the text 'Stalingrad' by Anthony Beevor, many young Stalingrad women were conscripted and operated front line AAA batteries and fought bravely against intense Wermacht assaults. But then again, what female wouldn't pick up a rifle if horde of Nazi's wanted to shit all over their homes and kitchens?

Regardless, I doubt Panetta opened front line combat career fields to women to fill a combat capability shortfall. So what's the reason? I'm calling foul If it's simply for 'equal opportunnity' because its a value that will never be shared by our enemies.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Helo Kitty

[nsplayr]

But then again, what female wouldn't pick up a rifle if horde of Nazi's wanted to shit all over their homes and kitchens?

This is an awesome image to imagine...well said!

Regardless, I doubt Panetta opened front line combat career fields to women to fill a combat capability shortfall. So what's the reason? I'm calling foul If it's simply for 'equal opportunnity' because its a value that will never be shared by our enemies.

My bet is it's values driven and also making policy line up with reality. The values argument is the one I've been making, the reality argument is the one Dempsey in particular has been making...that he's seen way more women in positions he considered "on the front liens" in Iraq and Afghanistan than he thought was allowed and they've served admirably. With that in mind, why ban them from certain other positions out in front if he already sees them there in danger right along side the guys and performing well?

Edited January 27, 2013 by nsplayr

[Guest one]

I am not sure what the big deal is. Certain units can still say that women are not allowed, they just have to have some type of justification and get it approved which won't be hard if they have a legit reason. This is just stopping whole career-fields from being limited to men only.

I am going to guess that every unit that needs to be men only will remain that way. Many people are talking about this issue as if there will be a flood of women trying to become SEALs. I doubt this will be the case. If a few women end up going through Ranger school, what is the big deal? Even if women have a 99% washout rate at Ranger school, would that be that big of a deal? Isn’t the male washout rate 50%? So few women will go through that the 50% of males that washout will cost so much more than the 99% of the women that the cost would be negligible.

Edited January 27, 2013 by one

[Fuzz]

My bet is it's values driven and also making policy line up with reality.

Right...because our politicians are so keen on values and not their own political score card, come man.

Isn’t the male washout rate 50%? So few women will go through that the 50% of males that washout will cost so much more than the 99% of the women that the cost would be negligible.

Well somebody has to do it and I'll take 50% over 99% and social experiment, and also in the area of sequestration lets piss away money so 1% might make it through a course that there is no need for them to go through all in the name of "equality" and "social justice".

[nsplayr]

Right...because our politicians are so keen on values and not their own political score card, come man.

Politics is all about values (and power).

Every policy choice a politician votes for is an expression of his values one way or the other. In this case there aren't exactly politicians involved (Panetta was previously but is not currently an elected official, Dempsey et al on the Joint Chiefs of Staff have never held elected office) but that's besides the point. This particular policy choices reflectes a particular set of values that I share.

Well somebody has to do it and I'll take 50% over 99% and social experiment, and also in the area of sequestration lets piss away money so 1% might make it through a course that there is no need for them to go through all in the name of "equality" and "social justice".

It's still missing the point...it's not being done because we really need women in these units or because there's somekind of manpower shortage so they figured they'd get a little womanpower or something like that. It's all about A) values -> equality of opportunity and the default should be that there is not discrimination unless there is a verifiable, operational need, and B) reality -> women are already on the front lines in many other positions, why not admit them to "ground combat units" as members of the unit instead of being "attached" like they can be now, assuming they meet the standards of that unit?

Straight from the horse's mouths: Panetta on the values argument,

"If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job -- and let me be clear, I'm not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job -- if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation,"

And Dempsey on the reality argument,

Dempsey took command of the Army's 1st Armored Division in June 2003, when Iraqi insurgents were starting to target American troops with sniper fire, grenades and roadside bombs. As he prepared for a trip outside his headquarters, he took a moment to introduce himself to the crew of his Humvee. "I slapped the turret gunner on the leg and I said, 'Who are you?' And she leaned down and said, I'm Amanda.' And I said, 'Ah, OK,' " Dempsey told reporters at the Pentagon. "So, female turret-gunner protecting division commander. It's from that point on that I realized something had changed, and it was time to do something about it."

That story is from Dempsey occurred about a decade ago, just to emphasize that women have been serving in positions most reasonable people would consider combat for some time now, right here in our U.S. military.

Edited January 27, 2013 by nsplayr