The defense authorization bill just passed by the Senate includes a requirement for the Pentagon to prepare a report to Congress on how it plans to open combat roles to women.
Women currently comprise approximately 15 percent of the Armed Forces, many of whom serve in dangerous roles on the frontlines, argued Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). In Iraq and Afghanistan, about 150 women were killed and nearly 900 wounded out of the more than 280,000 women deployed.
“Women are already fighting and dying for our country shoulder-to-shoulder with their brothers in uniform on the frontlines, but without the formal recognition that is essential for them to advance and obtain the benefits they have earned,” said Gillibrand. “Just like it was wrong to discriminate against service members because of whom they love, it is also wrong to deny combat roles to qualified women solely because of their gender. This is a strong step forward. When all of our best and brightest serve in combat our country is stronger for it.”
The legislation comes on the heels of two lawsuits filed this year by female service members challenging the Defense Department’s ban on women in combat. The plaintiffs note that combat experience is required for certain advancements up the chain of command.
Gillibrand’s amendment, which is now in the bill headed to the House for approval, would require a report on implementation of policies to increase combat service and career opportunities for qualified female service members of the Armed Forces, and to record and recognize combat-related service performed by female service members. The Pentagon report should include recommendations from the secretary of Defense on future steps required to eliminate barriers to service.
Thre are real, honest-to-God effective female frontline combatants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Ann_Hester
But these are rare, and an exception that proves the rule, which is: a majority of women are ill-suited physically for the most intense “tip of the spear” type of combat roles. The best suggestion is to let select female soldiers who are considered good physical/mental aptitude candidates to try to pass rigorous combat training. Otherwise don’t push this “equal outcomes” insanity. It is appalling that so much of society, and young women in particular, live in a fantasy world in regards to their inate cpacity for physical abilities and aggressiveness in the face of mostly male adversaries.
I have NO problems with such an experiement. However, make them serve in all female combat companies and battalions in real war situations. Anything less and we cannot reach a legitimate consensus conclusion to the experiement.
“but without the formal recognition that is essential for them to advance and obtain the benefits they have earned.”
Benefits? Is the military just some welfare program?
Ms. Gillibrand, allow me to explain to you the ethos behind the traditional, war-winning American military. In the United States Armed Forces, you *earn* nothing, except maybe your paycheck and the respect of your fellow combatants. Other than that, you *earn* nothing. Performance to an acceptable standard is simply expected and demanded. You will explicitly “earn” nothing by doing your job well. Instead, you do your *duty*, at all times, as the minimum expected. In the United States military, do not *earn* the right to anything. If you never get promoted, if you never get the job you want, if you don’t get the medal you want–well, as long as the mission got accomplished, your personal desires do not matter, though there is nothing wrong if you get what you want. But never forget the cause is bigger than you and your careerist desires. What matters is that you do your duty where you are, with what you have, and that the unit accomplish its mission. It’s not about you, but something bigger than you. It’s certainly not about you getting your “benefits”.
Along those lines, you do not *earn* promotion in the United States military. Promotions are not rewards. That’s what medals are for–and we give far too many, to the detriment to the ethos of duty. Instead, regarding promotions, you prove yourself in your present capacity such that higher authority thinks you *might* be a good risk to entrust with the authority of the next rank or paygrade. That they may take a reasonable gamble on you. But you do not “earn” higher rank, for it is a trust endowed upon you, and thus never wholly yours, and thus something you cannot own, and thus cannot “earn”.
Women not serving in combat jobs in no way can ever say they have “earned” promotion to higher rank, much less higher rank in combat jobs, solely based upon performance in non-combat assignments–which is the exact same as for men, and how it should be. Instead, what one does is give reassurance, through job performance, that one might not be an undue risk–but at the end of the day combat assignments demand the payment of dues. Because the dues will be paid, one way or the other, and perhaps in the form of blood, because in combat competence will out, not trendy ideas.
If a screening requirement is felt to be invalid, then it can go away, and has before (think of 20/20 uncorrected vision for pilots). There is no issue with that. But the United States military is not a welfare program, and no member has the right to a *demand* anything simply because they think they have “earned” it. What they instead have the right to do is do their duty in a cause greater than themselves, in whatever assignment they may find themselves, and let the Fates take care of the career path. And that’s good “Old Army”.
Shorter version for the stupid–it is perhaps unfair, but women have earned nothing to demand access to combat jobs, because in a proper military, no member has the right to demand much of anything career-wise, much less make demands for a job that they have not done. Ask any guy who didn’t the platform he wanted, or the branch. He certainly cannot “demand” transfer to the other branch, and in most cases never ends up switching during his career. It’s not about him. Thus, it’s not about women, either. They can demand *nothing*. We must have this ethos if we are to have a truly honorable and effective military. Service before self.
What can instead be asked–by society– is that screening requirements be only for valid things, and be at least reasonable as to exclusions, on a common-sense level. But the United States military is not about making personal dreams come true, though it is nice when they do. But it has a bigger job to do than that, and that’s all there is to it. If the requirement makes sense, it should stay. If outmoded because of changes in society, it should go. But it should be judgement calls about combat effectiveness determining the choice, not the welfare speak of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat from the State of New York.
How have so many people (including sadly, many in DOD) come to the twisted conclusion that real warfare is common too that of the Iraqi and Afganistan terrorist and rebel battlefields? I supose all to many have never been exposed to real warfare on a real battlefield — or they’ve forgotten.
Agreed. I was in the first Gulf War. We all new that war was a cake-walk because we had trained to fight a full-blown WWIII against the Warsaw Pact.
And women in combat units is a stupid idea.
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html
“I was in the first Gulf War.”
So was I and it cemented my opinion the women need to get out. It has been turned into another social welfare program.