White House announces support for women in military draft

[webfact]

White House announces support for women in military draft

By JOSH LEDERMAN

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is announcing its support for requiring women to register for the military draft.

 

The administration has been deliberating for roughly a year about whether to back such a change to the Selective Service. White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price says that because previous barriers to military service are being removed, it makes logical sense for women to be required to register for the draft.

 

But Price says the Obama administration remains committed to an all-volunteer military.

 

Under current law, women can volunteer to serve in the military but aren't required to register for the draft. All adult men must register.

 

It would take an act of Congress to add women to the Selective Service.

 

The change in position was first reported by USA Today.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-12-02

[Ulysses G.]

Fair is fair I guess,  but it is still stupid to require women to serve in combat.

[bassman]

More Obama "social re engineering", guess he's about out of time.  Hope and change flew the coop in 2009.

 

Women should have all military options open, but few women have the physical ability to serve in combat arms specialties and very, very few in special operations.

 

Drafting women is ridiculous at this point in time when there are 10's of millions of men available.

[helpisgood]

51 minutes ago, bassman said:

More Obama "social re engineering", guess he's about out of time.  Hope and change flew the coop in 2009.

 

Women should have all military options open, but few women have the physical ability to serve in combat arms specialties and very, very few in special operations.

 

Drafting women is ridiculous at this point in time when there are 10's of millions of men available.

I agree with you, if your point is that men, in general, (operative phrase there) are physically more capable in combat.   

 

However, I also agree that there are a few women you can handle it, although maybe more than you think.  I recall that recently two women passed the US Army Ranger training program and I think more have applied.  You can easily find this on Google.  As far as I am concerned, if they can make the cut, then let them do it.  It's all about winning - a serious matter - and not about maintaining a boy's club.  And yes, there are issues to be addressed as to how this affects the unit.  Yet, I have faith in the US military to figure out how to make this work.  Perhaps some of them may make skilled combat pilots. 

 

Also, if I understand the OP correctly, the administration is just merely talking about drafting women into the service.  I am sure that many drafted young women can contribute very well to non-combat roles.  Don't the Israelis draft women?  

 

Lastly, this reminds me of that Kipling poem - which I am not citing as evidence but just food for thought - that states, "...That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male."

 

Here's the poem in full:

 

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/hum100/female.html

 

Also, I think we all know and many men have experienced what Shakespeare warned us about a woman "scorned."

 

Again, I think you have a good point about the two genders - in general - regarding combat, but let's not underestimate the power of the American woman.

[bark]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

Fair is fair I guess,  but it is still stupid to require women to serve in combat.

If you are a women in the army, you want to fight. Who do you think is the driving force behind the movement.

Just look at Israel. Their women would kick your butt.

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, bark said:

 

Just look at Israel. Their women would kick your butt.

 

Israel restricts women's role in combat even more than the US. Thay have learned their lesson

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431239/israels-women-combat-experience-not-what-left-says

[bark]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

Israel restricts women's role in combat even more than the US. Thay have learned their lesson

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431239/israels-women-combat-experience-not-what-left-says

The Israelis women work under cover ( blankets ) Fighting for their country.

 

[bassman]

58 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

I agree with you, if your point is that men, in general, (operative phrase there) are physically more capable in combat.   

 

However, I also agree that there are a few women you can handle it, although maybe more than you think.  I recall that recently two women passed the US Army Ranger training program and I think more have applied.  You can easily find this on Google.  As far as I am concerned, if they can make the cut, then let them do it.  It's all about winning - a serious matter - and not about maintaining a boy's club.  And yes, there are issues to be addressed as to how this affects the unit.  Yet, I have faith in the US military to figure out how to make this work.  Perhaps some of them may make skilled combat pilots.

 

 

The point I make is in relation to the draft, not in anyway limiting choice.  Great on those females that can do what a man can, but traditional America still believes in protecting its women and children, drafting the women goes against those beliefs.

[williamgeorgeallen]

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Fair is fair I guess,  but it is still stupid to require women to serve in combat.

well this girl seems to know how to handle an M60. but seriously no one should be drafted into the army and the only woman who deserve to fight in combat supporting male troops are those who can pass the same selection tests.  20 years ago the nz army trialed females in the infantry when i was serving and they had trouble passing the considerably lower physical fitness tests. luckily i did not see live action but if i did i would want some one up to the task protecting my back.

[IAMHERE]

2 hours ago, bark said:

The Israelis women work under cover ( blankets ) Fighting for their country.

 

protecting their country.

[Kiwiken]

Wait until your new President calls them up to be shredded in some war of meddling. Easier to waste the poor than the elites. Workers in the USA seek a $15 hour minimum wage. Watch it get driven down to $5

[55Jay]

Looks like the Obama Administration has worked themselves between the dreaded patriarchal rock and a hypocritical hard spot. 

 

They made a big show of pushing the old boundaries, psychological and otherwise, by authorizing women in direct combat roles.  It was/is blatant window dressing to appease the feminist lobby and to punch another "progressive" ticket. They used the "PC" stick to squelch dissent.  The Commandant Of the Marine Corps was the only one to put up significant resistance but was ultimately, and unsurprisingly, forced to capitulate.

 

Authorizing  is an invitation, which is very different than Ordering.  In a full-on draft/ mobilization, if 1,000s of boots on the ground is what's needed, then inductees are put in the pipe line; often, but not exclusively, those with low to average aptitude scores.  Basically, "You, You and You... you're gunna be infantry so suck it up buttercup, pack your shit and report to AIT (Advanced Infantry Training).  Have fun and don't forget to duck."  Next....

 

Obama Admin dragging the "all volunteer force" policy into this, is a red herring.  We've been all-volunteer since 1973.  Males have been compelled to register for the inactive draft since then without any impact on the all volunteer policy.  Compelling females to register would have no impact either. 

[hawker9000]

3 hours ago, helpisgood said:

I agree with you, if your point is that men, in general, (operative phrase there) are physically more capable in combat.   

 

However, I also agree that there are a few women you can handle it, although maybe more than you think.  I recall that recently two women passed the US Army Ranger training program and I think more have applied.  You can easily find this on Google.  As far as I am concerned, if they can make the cut, then let them do it.  It's all about winning - a serious matter - and not about maintaining a boy's club.  And yes, there are issues to be addressed as to how this affects the unit.  Yet, I have faith in the US military to figure out how to make this work.  Perhaps some of them may make skilled combat pilots. 

 

Also, if I understand the OP correctly, the administration is just merely talking about drafting women into the service.  I am sure that many drafted young women can contribute very well to non-combat roles.  Don't the Israelis draft women?  

 

Lastly, this reminds me of that Kipling poem - which I am not citing as evidence but just food for thought - that states, "...That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male."

 

Here's the poem in full:

 

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/hum100/female.html

 

Also, I think we all know and many men have experienced what Shakespeare warned us about a woman "scorned."

 

Again, I think you have a good point about the two genders - in general - regarding combat, but let's not underestimate the power of the American woman.

" I am sure that many drafted young women can contribute very well to non-combat roles."

 

Yeah sure.  Why they can fill the billets that the men used to rotate to between the more arduous regular line tours.  What an absolutely inspired idea...  Then the men can spend their entire service away from their families doing the "rough duty", while the women are "contributing so well to the non-combat roles".  That should just do wonders for enlistment and retention. 

 

Let's not underestimate the damage that social engineering does to overall readiness and morale...   Obama and his wiz kids has always been such dim bulbs in this area.

 

 

 

 

[helpisgood]

3 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

" I am sure that many drafted young women can contribute very well to non-combat roles."

 

Yeah sure.  Why they can fill the billets that the men used to rotate to between the more arduous regular line tours.  What an absolutely inspired idea...  Then the men can spend their entire service away from their families doing the "rough duty", while the women are "contributing so well to the non-combat roles".  That should just do wonders for enlistment and retention. 

 

Let's not underestimate the damage that social engineering does to overall readiness and morale...   Obama and his wiz kids has always been such dim bulbs in this area.

 

 

 

 

 

So, there aren't women performing non-combat duties now in the US military and have been for many years now? 

 

I think you that you thought I meant women will fill all of the non-combat roles.  If so, you read too much into it. 

[dunroaming]

10 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Fair is fair I guess,  but it is still stupid to require women to serve in combat.

 

I guess it depends on the type of combat.  These days most conflict is conducted or controlled by people sitting in front of computer screens so they would be fine for that and in many cases then probably better.  As far as being a grunt or cannon fodder then I agree with you.

[Shot]

6 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Wait until your new President calls them up to be shredded in some war of meddling. Easier to waste the poor than the elites. Workers in the USA seek a $15 hour minimum wage. Watch it get driven down to $5

 

 

I have no quarrel with you, but the hate in you is beyond normal.

[Grubster]

Nobody should be exempt from a draft, if you are going to have one. Equal rights, equal pay, equal duty. If you are a 18 year old girl worth 100 billion dollars you should be drafted and treated the same as a 18 year old poor boy. It should also be predetermined what type of duty you will perform. If you draw the number that says you will be front line infantry than that is what you will do even if you are a doctor on the outside. The only way you can be treated by your profession would be if you enlist before you are drafted. That would be the only fair way to do it. I think a lot of rich people might think first before they push the war button if it were this way.

[tifino]

10 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

well this girl seems to know how to handle an M60. but seriously no one should be drafted into the army and the only woman who deserve to fight in combat supporting male troops are those who can pass the same selection tests.  20 years ago the nz army trialed females in the infantry when i was serving and they had trouble passing the considerably lower physical fitness tests. luckily i did not see live action but if i did i would want some one up to the task protecting my back.

 

someone is going to have her eye poked out - what with the bullet's pointy end aimed in her direction

[hawker9000]

16 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

well this girl seems to know how to handle an M60. but seriously no one should be drafted into the army and the only woman who deserve to fight in combat supporting male troops are those who can pass the same selection tests.  20 years ago the nz army trialed females in the infantry when i was serving and they had trouble passing the considerably lower physical fitness tests. luckily i did not see live action but if i did i would want some one up to the task protecting my back.

Yes!  'Like posing for pics is all there is to it.  My neighbor's 10yo daughter could dress up in costume and pose in a bed of brass shells with a big boy gun like this...  (One thing though; I have almost no experience with M60s, but I wouldn't have thought you could even GET a belt to feed that way and be able to close the cover...   'Just a scale model maybe?  Reminds me of that Matt Helm film with the .45 with the 2-way trigger.)  Anyway, pure - if not very good - propaganda.

 

[sgtsabai]

I fought wildland fire with women, like men, some were good some weren't. If you happen to think that's nothing, perhaps you should try to make the cut. Perhaps you should ask Senator Tammy Duckworth about combat roles for women, seems she did pretty good. Maybe the women of the Peshmerga could straighten out some of our people that think women can't/won't fight.

 

Personally I was opposed to the draft during the American War in SE Asia, but I was wrong. The all volunteer force is a lesson learned out of Vietnam, the wrong one. If we had a draft over the past debacle of wars, those wars would be over now. Bring back the draft and draft every capable person, male or female. See how long the insanity continues.

 

That is a weird picture. Impossible to get a belt to feed backward.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎02‎.‎12‎.‎2016 at 9:10 AM, bassman said:

More Obama "social re engineering", guess he's about out of time.  Hope and change flew the coop in 2009.

 

Women should have all military options open, but few women have the physical ability to serve in combat arms specialties and very, very few in special operations.

 

Drafting women is ridiculous at this point in time when there are 10's of millions of men available.

LoL. Women are always telling us they can do anything and want equality. Fine, give them the equality to be sent off to die in many nasty ways with men.

Also, should have to have same haircuts etc.

Only exception should be for actually being too weak/ short to pass the basic physical requirements.

There are about 10 support troops for every combat soldier, so plenty of opportunity for them to serve if not up to combat requirements.

[thaibeachlovers]

47 minutes ago, sgtsabai said:

I fought wildland fire with women, like men, some were good some weren't. If you happen to think that's nothing, perhaps you should try to make the cut. Perhaps you should ask Senator Tammy Duckworth about combat roles for women, seems she did pretty good. Maybe the women of the Peshmerga could straighten out some of our people that think women can't/won't fight.

 

Personally I was opposed to the draft during the American War in SE Asia, but I was wrong. The all volunteer force is a lesson learned out of Vietnam, the wrong one. If we had a draft over the past debacle of wars, those wars would be over now. Bring back the draft and draft every capable person, male or female. See how long the insanity continues.

 

That is a weird picture. Impossible to get a belt to feed backward.

IMO the belt is just tied there, with no rounds in the gun. Like when they show a person with an ET tube in a movie. The tube is cut short and just in the mouth.

 

OR, it's photoshopped.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎02‎.‎12‎.‎2016 at 6:55 PM, dunroaming said:

 

I guess it depends on the type of combat.  These days most conflict is conducted or controlled by people sitting in front of computer screens so they would be fine for that and in many cases then probably better.  As far as being a grunt or cannon fodder then I agree with you.

What I dislike about the current situation is that women can join the military and become high officer rank without ever going in harm's way. Either they should be restricted in rank, or be as liable for combat as any man.

Before anyone jumps on me, I know lots of male officers reach high rank without ever having been shot at, but they are all expected to go in harms way if required to do so.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎02‎.‎12‎.‎2016 at 11:01 AM, bassman said:

 

The point I make is in relation to the draft, not in anyway limiting choice.  Great on those females that can do what a man can, but traditional America still believes in protecting its women and children, drafting the women goes against those beliefs.

Can we get rid of equality laws then? If they can't serve because they are just weak wimin, then they shouldn't expect to be equal elsewhere.

[Slip]

I don't believe canons discriminate against their fodder, so why the concern?