US officials: Military likely to open most combat jobs to women

[webfact]

Officials: Military likely to open most combat jobs to women
By LOLITA C. BALDOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two women have now passed the Army's grueling Ranger test, and even tougher and more dangerous jobs could lie ahead. The military services are poised to allow women to serve in most front-line combat jobs, including special operations forces, senior officials told The Associated Press.

Based on early talks, officials say the Army, Navy and Air Force likely will not seek exceptions that close any jobs to women. Marine Corps leaders, they say, have expressed concerns about allowing women to serve in infantry jobs and yet may seek an exception.

The services are wrapping up reviews and must make their recommendations to Defense Secretary Ash Carter this fall. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the internal debate.

Even if Marine leaders object, they are likely to meet resistance from senior Navy and Defense Department officials who want the military to be united on this issue.

Undercutting the Marines' reservations is that Special Operations Command is likely to allow women to compete for the most demanding military commando jobs — including the Navy SEALs and the Army's Delta Force — though with the knowledge that it may be years before women even try to enter those fields.

Women have been steadily moving into previously all-male jobs across the military, including as members of the Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, best known as the helicopter crews that flew Navy SEALs into Osama bin Laden's compound. Women are also now serving on Navy submarines and in Army artillery units.

Friday will mark another milestone as the two women graduate at Fort Benning, Georgia, from the Ranger school, a physically and mentally demanding two-month combat leadership course. Completing the course lets the two women wear the coveted Ranger black-and-gold tab, but it does not let them become members of the Ranger regiment. Neither woman has been publicly identified by the military.

Longer term, the uncertainty of the Marine decision underscores the wrenching debates going on within the military over the changing role of women, and it reflects the individual identities of the services and how they view their warrior ethos.

Only a handful of jobs in the Navy and Air Force are currently closed to women.

Last year the Navy considered seeking an exception that would have prohibited women from serving on older guided missile frigates, mine-countermeasure ships and patrol coast craft. Some argued that those ships, which are due to be phased out in coming years, would need millions of dollars in construction to add facilities for women and it wasn't worth the expense.

But Navy Secretary Ray Mabus withdrew that plan in a memo late last month that was obtained by the AP. Officials said Navy leaders concluded that since women can serve in all the same jobs on other ships no real exclusion existed.

The Army and Marine Corps, however, have thousands of infantry, artillery and armor jobs that are currently closed to women. There has been a lot of study and debate over whether to open those positions, because they often involve fighting in small units on the front lines, doing physically punishing tasks.

The Marine Corps set up a task force this year to set gender-neutral job standards and determine whether incorporating women into small squads affected unit cohesion or combat readiness. Companies made up of all men and mixes of men and women spent up to three months in California performing a broad range of unit tasks and going through detailed scientific evaluations to see how they did. Senior leaders are reviewing those results.

Army leaders did similar scientific analysis, reviewing all tasks needed to do the combat jobs and have been creating gender-neutral standards that troops will have to meet in order to qualify. Meanwhile, however, the Army began to slowly open some combat positions, including artillery jobs, to women.

In recent days, officials familiar with the discussions said they believe the Army will allow women to seek infantry and armor jobs as well.

Gen. Ray Odierno, who retired last week as Army chief of staff, hinted at that conclusion.

"In order to best manage your talent, you have to pick the best people who can perform to the standards that we have established," Odierno said. "If you can meet the standards that we've established, then you should be able to perform in that (position). And I think that's where we're headed."

In January 2013 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed an order wiping away generations of limits on women fighting for their country, ordering a quarter-million positions open regardless of gender. They called for sweeping reviews of the physical requirements for combat jobs and gave the military services until January 2016 to argue if any positions should remain closed to women.

Throughout the process, all the services have made it clear they will not reduce any standards to allow women to qualify for the most demanding jobs. But they reviewed the requirements for the various combat posts to make sure they were directly related to tasks that had to be done as part of the jobs.

During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, thousands of women served and fought, and about 160 died.

Dempsey told reporters during that 2013 news conference that he did not rule out women serving as members of special operations forces, although it might be years before they actually qualified.

"I think we all believe that there will be women who can meet those standards," he said.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-19

[Pakboong]

Women have an absolute strength disadvantage of roughly 12%. The emotional issues are pretty hard to evaluate but they do exist in pretty much every case. The numbers of rapes has risen out of sight among deployed troops. A very bad call IMO.

[DoctorG]

Women have an absolute strength disadvantage of roughly 12%. The emotional issues are pretty hard to evaluate but they do exist in pretty much every case. The numbers of rapes has risen out of sight among deployed troops. A very bad call IMO.

1. I would contend that (many) Western women would be stronger than (many) Asian men, yet Asian soldiers have had great results over the centuries.

2. If you are contending that the rapes are done by their fellow male soldiers, then it would appear that the fault lies with the lack of discipline of the males, and of their superiors.

3. The emotion issue is difficult to quantify and would need to be tested.

[h90]

Women have an absolute strength disadvantage of roughly 12%. The emotional issues are pretty hard to evaluate but they do exist in pretty much every case. The numbers of rapes has risen out of sight among deployed troops. A very bad call IMO.

1. I would contend that (many) Western women would be stronger than (many) Asian men, yet Asian soldiers have had great results over the centuries.

2. If you are contending that the rapes are done by their fellow male soldiers, then it would appear that the fault lies with the lack of discipline of the males, and of their superiors.

3. The emotion issue is difficult to quantify and would need to be tested.

1. absolute strength was surely important in times when war was fought with the sword......now it isn't as relevant anymore......And I know some farmer women in Europe who would easily tear me (male) apart.....

[Pakboong]

Women have an absolute strength disadvantage of roughly 12%. The emotional issues are pretty hard to evaluate but they do exist in pretty much every case. The numbers of rapes has risen out of sight among deployed troops. A very bad call IMO.

1. I would contend that (many) Western women would be stronger than (many) Asian men, yet Asian soldiers have had great results over the centuries.

2. If you are contending that the rapes are done by their fellow male soldiers, then it would appear that the fault lies with the lack of discipline of the males, and of their superiors.

3. The emotion issue is difficult to quantify and would need to be tested.

1. absolute strength was surely important in times when war was fought with the sword......now it isn't as relevant anymore......And I know some farmer women in Europe who would easily tear me (male) apart.....

The study regarding absolute strength was done with top athletes of both sexes. If you measure will to succeed physically and of course, Stamina the number is also 12%. If you need a quick frame of reference, look up times of the top women and top men in iron man triathlons and pretty much anything that pits men and women against the same standard. No need to compare a Thai som tom sales person to a Russian shot putter for what would seem to be obvious reasons.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Pakboong

[TooPoopedToPop]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

[HLover]

ha ha ha

[arjunadawn]

Women have an absolute strength disadvantage of roughly 12%. The emotional issues are pretty hard to evaluate but they do exist in pretty much every case. The numbers of rapes has risen out of sight among deployed troops. A very bad call IMO.

1. I would contend that (many) Western women would be stronger than (many) Asian men, yet Asian soldiers have had great results over the centuries.

2. If you are contending that the rapes are done by their fellow male soldiers, then it would appear that the fault lies with the lack of discipline of the males, and of their superiors.

3. The emotion issue is difficult to quantify and would need to be tested.

1. As someone who has trained Middle eastern and Asian military for decades I find your statement is false.

2. Identifying who is at fault does little initially and ultimately to change the fact that women will be increasingly raped. The social re engineering to address this is possible, but the primal instinct is regrettably co located with the desire to kill. Since America does not win wars any longer my point may be moot. Optempos will be markedly compromised (as repeatedly evidenced) by increased female populations and increased health care costs and decreased deployability, and frequent re deployments from pregnancy. I am against women in combat roles. My data can be neutralized with alternative data, I am sure. Its all out there to make any argument one wants. But intuitively, any man who has ever served, knows women decrease combat effectiveness in multiple ways, or would in ways envisioned.

3. Indeed, lets test something that has been an inherent self evident part of culture for millennia- that women suffer from bouts of hormonal changes. Not a reflection of the woman, per se, but undoubtedly a phenomena that needs little testing. Lets give them nuke triggers, AR10s, a hole in the sand for weeks, a plastic bag to crap in, and a period which animals would track and some humans can sense hundreds of meters away! Sounds like a viable national security plan. Do these people actually know what combat and in particular special forces does?

I am all for equality but idealism ends where reality begins. Men should not have babies and breastfeed. Children ideally prosper best with an attending mother. Combat is best executed by men. Certain human conditions are self evident and reinforced since the dawn of time. In the effort to build a brave new world humans are destroying both the baby and the bath water.

[Krataiboy]

From givers of life to harbingers of death. A small step for woman, but another giant leap into the abyss for mankind.

[arjunadawn]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

I saw your post following my previous one. How interesting we both hit on the same point. Perhaps it no longer matters

[sgtsabai]

I fought forest fire for the USDA-Forest Service with several women overe the years. Fighting wildland fire is in many ways like fighting a battle except you don't have to kill anybody, but if you screw up you get people killed. Any of you that think that is an easy job, well try it sometime for hours, days, weeks on end. Watching your crew get smaller from injury, illness, etc. every day/night as you re-enter the line. The hunger/thirst when the mule pack train bringing your chow/water to the spike camp falls off a cliff. The panic of some when the fire blows up right below you, you can't hold the line and you have a 5+ mile forced march with what you can carry to safety and "a short time to get there". Like the men, some women were highly capable and I would have stood with them any day and some weren't worth the money it took to train them. We sent both sexes home in disgrace more than once. While working with the California fire personal I was told that every time it looked like a woman could pass their physical they just upped the anti. These guys fought not only wildfire but structure and their requirements were different as far as pure physical strength. Of course they didn't make all the older guys go back and retake the physical after it was changed. The last sentence was a clue folks. Like one poster said the US hasn't won a real war since WWII and they didn't do that by themselves. I don't think women in the ranks will make it any worse. Israel has them, Charlie had them, Pathet Lao had them and they seemed to have done pretty well. The real problem today is leadership, same as it was in Vietnam. Generals that just want to push the pencil and make the big bucks when they retire. Where's (that other) Chesty when he's been so sorely needed since retirement.

[chuckd]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

Politicians have lost all the wars wince WW2, not the US military.

[h90]

Women have an absolute strength disadvantage of roughly 12%. The emotional issues are pretty hard to evaluate but they do exist in pretty much every case. The numbers of rapes has risen out of sight among deployed troops. A very bad call IMO.

1. I would contend that (many) Western women would be stronger than (many) Asian men, yet Asian soldiers have had great results over the centuries.

2. If you are contending that the rapes are done by their fellow male soldiers, then it would appear that the fault lies with the lack of discipline of the males, and of their superiors.

3. The emotion issue is difficult to quantify and would need to be tested.

1. As someone who has trained Middle eastern and Asian military for decades I find your statement is false.

2. Identifying who is at fault does little initially and ultimately to change the fact that women will be increasingly raped. The social re engineering to address this is possible, but the primal instinct is regrettably co located with the desire to kill. Since America does not win wars any longer my point may be moot. Optempos will be markedly compromised (as repeatedly evidenced) by increased female populations and increased health care costs and decreased deployability, and frequent re deployments from pregnancy. I am against women in combat roles. My data can be neutralized with alternative data, I am sure. Its all out there to make any argument one wants. But intuitively, any man who has ever served, knows women decrease combat effectiveness in multiple ways, or would in ways envisioned.

3. Indeed, lets test something that has been an inherent self evident part of culture for millennia- that women suffer from bouts of hormonal changes. Not a reflection of the woman, per se, but undoubtedly a phenomena that needs little testing. Lets give them nuke triggers, AR10s, a hole in the sand for weeks, a plastic bag to crap in, and a period which animals would track and some humans can sense hundreds of meters away! Sounds like a viable national security plan. Do these people actually know what combat and in particular special forces does?

I am all for equality but idealism ends where reality begins. Men should not have babies and breastfeed. Children ideally prosper best with an attending mother. Combat is best executed by men. Certain human conditions are self evident and reinforced since the dawn of time. In the effort to build a brave new world humans are destroying both the baby and the bath water.

I guess in combat the period would be turned off....

[HLover]

The fields run red with blood....

[arjunadawn]

Women have an absolute strength disadvantage of roughly 12%. The emotional issues are pretty hard to evaluate but they do exist in pretty much every case. The numbers of rapes has risen out of sight among deployed troops. A very bad call IMO.

1. I would contend that (many) Western women would be stronger than (many) Asian men, yet Asian soldiers have had great results over the centuries.

2. If you are contending that the rapes are done by their fellow male soldiers, then it would appear that the fault lies with the lack of discipline of the males, and of their superiors.

3. The emotion issue is difficult to quantify and would need to be tested.

1. As someone who has trained Middle eastern and Asian military for decades I find your statement is false.

2. Identifying who is at fault does little initially and ultimately to change the fact that women will be increasingly raped. The social re engineering to address this is possible, but the primal instinct is regrettably co located with the desire to kill. Since America does not win wars any longer my point may be moot. Optempos will be markedly compromised (as repeatedly evidenced) by increased female populations and increased health care costs and decreased deployability, and frequent re deployments from pregnancy. I am against women in combat roles. My data can be neutralized with alternative data, I am sure. Its all out there to make any argument one wants. But intuitively, any man who has ever served, knows women decrease combat effectiveness in multiple ways, or would in ways envisioned.

3. Indeed, lets test something that has been an inherent self evident part of culture for millennia- that women suffer from bouts of hormonal changes. Not a reflection of the woman, per se, but undoubtedly a phenomena that needs little testing. Lets give them nuke triggers, AR10s, a hole in the sand for weeks, a plastic bag to crap in, and a period which animals would track and some humans can sense hundreds of meters away! Sounds like a viable national security plan. Do these people actually know what combat and in particular special forces does?

I am all for equality but idealism ends where reality begins. Men should not have babies and breastfeed. Children ideally prosper best with an attending mother. Combat is best executed by men. Certain human conditions are self evident and reinforced since the dawn of time. In the effort to build a brave new world humans are destroying both the baby and the bath water.

I guess in combat the period would be turned off....

I am not all for the revisionist drama that increasingly forces the West to deny its own humanity, and virtues of gender roles. I have no problem with even having a discussion on what we perceive are our evolved roles in modern culture to be. I do object the social engineering drama in the US military that first began years ago with Senator Schroder using it as a social laboratory. Socialists, always aware that the military was a bastion of moral conservatism, if not political and economic, targeted the military right after they targeted the US Dewey-Education system. Now they will do to the military what they have done to US education, eviscerate it and mold it nearer the heart's desire- a Fabian Progressive Frankenstein. If anyone thinks the US remotely resembles a moral upright nation any longer they should reconsider their measurement. With a military increasingly incapable of winning any wars due to the same socialist doctrine of self loathing that is changing the nation generally, they will not be disappointed with the results of further destruction.

[slipperylobster]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

Politicians have lost all the wars wince WW2, not the US military.

Nice to hear from somebody that has their head screwed on straight.

I am sure, that the statement concerning american men (in the military) was not a serious one.

Obviously, Politicians put our military in harms way, and withdraw support/fail to follow through.

sort of like when you should not draw your weapon unless you plan to use it.

Edited August 19, 2015 by slipperylobster

[Pakboong]

This problem is far more serious than the general population might think. The politicians are picking fights without thought to who exactly will do the fighting. One third of all men of draft age (if we actually had a draft) are over the weight standard. The number ineligible for other the reason is hurting recruiting like never before. Disqualification due to felony conviction are running at an all time high. Perhaps America needs illegal immigration to fill the ranks of the military.

[JingerBen]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

Politicians have lost all the wars wince WW2, not the US military.

Seems I've heard something similar before... Was it Hitler?

[HLover]

Or Stalin?

[Ulysses G.]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

Politicians have lost all the wars wince WW2, not the US military.

Seems I've heard something similar before... Was it Hitler?

He certainly lost WW II.

If the military will not reduce any standards to allow women to qualify for the most demanding jobs, I am not against it, but they will. There are almost no women that could get through the higher rungs of special forces training without relaxing the rules.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Rancid]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

Actually the problem maybe more that they haven't fought a defensive war, they are always invading and maiming another country. There is probably a lot less motivation invading others than defending home turf.

[JingerBen]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

Actually the problem maybe more that they haven't fought a defensive war, they are always invading and maiming another country. There is probably a lot less motivation invading others than defending home turf.

That sounds plausible, but greed, corruption, and incompetence in high places has surely played a part as well.

[chuckd]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

Politicians have lost all the wars wince WW2, not the US military.

Seems I've heard something similar before... Was it Hitler?

Just to be clear here...are you equating what I said to something Hitler might have said?

[JingerBen]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

Politicians have lost all the wars wince WW2, not the US military.

Seems I've heard something similar before... Was it Hitler?

Just to be clear here...are you equating what I said to something Hitler might have said?

As I understand it, Hitler blamed the politicians and influential Jews in Germany for the loss of WWI.

The implication being that the German Army didn't lose. It was, in his words, "Stabbed in the back."

There may be some truth to that, but in my opinion, it is the military that ultimately win or lose wars.

[sgtsabai]

For once I can actually agree with at least most of what UG said (I'm checking to see if it is snowing outside). If the military doesn't relax its rules is the clue. I don't believe the military will relax its rules, esp. in the special opps. My son used to call from time to time when going through BUDS to let me know about the training and how he was doing (made it), I'm not sure even in my prime I could have done the cold water training although most of the rest was very similar to Marine Corps boot camp. Personally I doubt if any woman can make it through. No, politicians don't lose wars, generals do. Politicians should not support illegal, immoral wars. Also, please do try and remember the military answers to the civilian part of our government, not the other way around and that is the way it should be. I will say, the rules of engagement do not meet the job and have not for some time. War has casualties, on both sides and some are civilians. No, we don't want to purposely kill civilians, but there isn't time to call time out and ask are you a civilian and are you on our side, when some <deleted> is trying to kill you. Deliberate targeting as in drone attacks is another story. If this country is to fight a war, fight the damn thing and don't pussyfoot around. If not, don't fight. If we had a draft today, the wars in the middle east would have ended years ago, hence no draft. Another one of the wrong lessons learned from Vietnam. I say give the women a fighting chance. They've done pretty well in Iraq/Afghanistan. Here is a little piece about why we cannot win wars: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176037/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_time_to_hold_military_boots_to_the_fire/#more

[arjunadawn]

American men have been unable to decisively win a war since 1945... maybe the women can do it.

Politicians have lost all the wars wince WW2, not the US military.

I stand corrected.