Pentagon Will Open All Combat Roles to Women
Pentagon Will Open All Combat Roles to Women by Matthew Rosenberg and Dave Phillips, New York Times
In a historic change for the American military, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter on Thursday announced that the Pentagon will open all combat jobs to women.
“There will be no exceptions,” Mr. Carter said at a Pentagon news conference.
The groundbreaking decision overturns a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles, even though in reality women often found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Carter said that, after a three-year review, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations Command agreed that all combat positions should be open to qualified women.
Only the Marine Corps, he said, requested some exemptions.
But Mr. Carter said he overruled the Marines to open all combat positions to women because the military should operate under a common set of standards…
“Mr. Carter said he overruled the Marines to open all combat positions to women because the military should operate under a common set of standards.”
This alone has left me speechless. I could write on and on, but damn, just damn.
The fourteenth century Mongol conqueror Timur reportedly declared it was better to be in right place at the right time on the battlefied with ten men than in the wrong place at the wrong time with ten thousand men. In light of Secretary Carter’s announcement today, Timur would have to update his axiom to include women. Whether the citizenry of the United States recognizes the consequences of its increasingly idle male population ceding responsibility for defending the country to an increasingly feminized military is unclear.
Cheers, RJP http://goo.gl/bMZIS
Has anyone checked the play habits of boys and girls on this playground? Bring that thought to High School, College, and professional sports. Boys and girls are different and not interchangeable. This move does not increase readiness of the active, guard, or reserve forces. War is the ultimate competition. I understand that about 70% of our population is not qualified to serve. I also understand there are about 3 divisions worth of people in the force non-deployable. There is a budget crunch. There is ordered downsizing. And, now the girls are going to fix it! This move is not smart.
One of the things I find most interesting about this continuing debate, and now this seemingly final development in that debate, is that in an era when people are hyper-sensitive about the cost of providing long-term care for wounded veterans, the DoD has made a decision that is scientifically proven without any grounds for dispute to produce many more incidental and chronic injuries and, potentially, fatalities. That’s an undisputable issue, regardless of your take on the “one standard” argument, or all of the more nebulous issues about morale, unit cohesion, and such.
Given the United States’ enduring political objective — of transforming outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines — might it have been determined that, re: this enduring political objective, the U.S./the West must be seen (especially by the populations in the Islamic states) to not only:
a. Talk the talk. But, also, to
b. Walk the walk and set the example?
Herein, the U.S./the West not wishing to put itself in a position to be called — re: non-full gender integration –a hypocrite?
So to show its (the U.S./the West’s) uncompromising commitment to “progress” and to the values that it seeks to impose on/inspire in others (for example: gender equality).
What better way to show such a commitment — than to take the dynamic (propaganda?) step of opening all military occupations — to include combat roles — to women?
Thus, a profound statement made re: our commitment to our values?
Is this what this is really all about?
(Thus, something that we can point to and “sell” to the oppressed (???) women [our potential “natural allies”] in outlying states and societies?)
Thus to fight this/these 21st Century wars — to transform outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines — via other means and other ways?
(Hope it doesn’t backfire. The potential — re: this dramatic “in-your-face” cultural clashing step — is certainly there; as we, via this very step, show ourselves to be even more abominably different than those that we hope to bring into the fold.)
I despise political correctness of all forms, while embracing respect for all (until someone proves they don’t deserve it anymore based on their behavior). The majority of tests demonstrated that women are not equal to men in many combat arms positions, and yet DOD still decided to pursue this course of action. This indicates it was based on a political correctness agenda versus reason and pursuing equal opportunity. This also indicates political correctness trumped combat effectiveness concerns. Can women fly combat in combat? Most certainly, that requires skill not brute strength. Going to the other extreme, can women serve effectively in the infantry in prolonged, intense combat conditions? I think that will prove to be another issue altogether. We have confused our past 15 years of drive by COIN with large modern base camps as the character of all wars to come, yet the reality will likely prove to be quite different. I suspect we’ll wish we have maintained the rigorous physical standards for combat arms, because frankly no amount of political correctness will change the reality of combat.
Done of the above is intended as a slight against women. From a special operations perspective (which is different from enduring, intense infantry combat), women have served honorably and bravely for decades. The now unclassified stories of women in the SOE and OSS operatives operating behind enemy lines during WWII are legendary, to include incidents where they killed Germans using neck breaks. Their courage and intelligence is not in question, at least not for me. I think they have always had a role in special operations. That doesn’t mean they fit everywhere, or on every SOF mission.
I don’t think they’ll be a good generic fit in Army Special Forces or the Rangers, since both often come close to replicating the same arduous conditions infantry units have to endure in the field. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have women in Army Special Forces altogether, there are certainly missions where they would be prove to be highly valuable as a female green beret in any of our skill sets (communications, weapons, engineer, medical, intelligence). In other situations women won’t be appropriate for cultural (the partners we’re working with won’t accept it) or due to exceptional arduous physical conditions. This is gets to a larger issue, do we have the flexibility to assign the right person to the right mission with our personnel system?
Bottom line, we’re over 200 years overdue to get rid of all our racial, gender, and other biases. The military has often led the way in this effort, but that doesn’t mean everyone is qualified or suited to do everything. Reason must trump political correctness, especially when it comes to national defense. I’ll reserve judgment until this plays out for a couple of years. If we maintain standards then my concerns will prove to be unfounded, but seeing will be believing.
My father (35 years and a Master Chief in the Navy) was unhappy when I joined the Marines. After he collected himself he came and told me about the real world. Something like, no one cares. You will be expendable. Some politician will make a decision to drop you somewhere and you’ll get killed and if you get killed I could never face your mother again. It took some time, but I learned to understand his point of view.
The WSJ reports tonight that the White House is reviewing the draft in light of the new policy of combat assignments for women. It seems that the selective service may now start registering women.
I have a seven year old daughter. She’s sharp. Skipped a grade already and performs at the top of her class. So far, she’s pretty athletic. She’s only seven and we’ll see more in time.
I see the possibility that my daughter can get drafted, assigned (ordered under the UCMJ really -that’s what an assignment is) to a combat arms unit, and dropped somewhere and killed at some politician’s discretion. I find this troubling.
Ashton Carter seems to think this will increase his recruiting pool.
NBC NY lead the other night on the combat assignment for women policy as “the military strikes a blow against the glass ceiling”.
I have four sons. I will support them and my daughter in their chosen endeavors. If my sons were to be drafted, assigned to combat units and faced what they had to face, I would accept that as a price we pay for who and what we are and want to be. I can’t get there with my daughter.
I can’t accept Carter’s recruiting strategy. NBC news’s nonsense makes me sick. I’m having trouble thinking about 1000 flag officers buying into this.
We’re making a decision here and now to send women into combat for us. I cannot understand and I cannot support that.
My daughter will not go.
We need to look at these matters more from the standpoint of our radically progressive STRATEGY, NARRATIVE, POLITICAL OBJECTIVE and, in this regard, EXAMPLE.
As to these matters, and specifically re: our political objective of transforming outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines (and re: these matters our wishing to be seen as not only touting but also living our values) to consider the following from Secretary Kerry:
“No country can get ahead if it leaves half of its people behind. This is why the United States believes gender equality is critical to our shared goals of prosperity, stability, and peace, and why investing in women and girls worldwide is critical to advancing U.S. foreign policy.”
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/03/207940.htm
So it appears that our national leaders determined that if the U.S./the West was going to “talk the talk” to others re: gender equality, then the U.S./the West was certainly going to have to “walk the walk.”
Herein, with our butts hanging out — re: gender equality — in the most visible and proud aspect of our foreign policy projection, to wit: our military forces deployed overseas.
Thus, and re: STRATEGY, NARRATIVE, POLITICAL OBJECTIVE and EXAMPLE, to suggest that this current move makes perfect sense and was, pretty much, required?
This, if we wished to keep/maintain our credibility, and not be called a hypocrite, by those very populations that we are seeking to “transform.” Yes?
Thus, should we require “modernization” by others, we certainly had to rid ourselves of one of the last vestiges of our own ancient traditions and customs?
(Practicality as to these matters — for both “us” and for “them” and re: all these such “modernization”/”transformation” matters — simply not entering into the picture/being pushed into the background by our such radically “progressive” agenda? An agenda which, in both the U.S./the West and elsewhere, finds itself having to, ultimately, deal with, and answer to, reality/wisdom/common sense? And having to admit that, re: such matters, the “old ways” — for both we ourselves and for those that we seek to “transform” — still seem to be valid/make better sense?)
Let’s face it gents, we live in an era where looking the part trumps playing the part. The time where where physical standards or tangible achievement mattered is gone. The cultural slide is most evident at the top, four star cops and fruit salad generals. Promotion is confused with achievement. The most important weapons on the E-Ring today are wet fingers in the political winds and a well-wrought budget. Difficult as it is to be cynical about the home team, it seems that keeping the game going has now become the end game. “Not winning” is the gift that keeps on giving for those folks in the military/industrial complex that never go in harm’s way. The interests of sutlers are always at odds with the troops at risk. And today, the sutlers in DOD outnumber the warriors a thousand-to-one if you count contractors. The all-volunteer force is now the servant of a selfish nation, programs have become more important than people.
I don’t lose sleep at night over things like this — because they are beyond our control. Elections have consequences. They always have had consequences for good or ill on the military.
What keeps me up at night are the self-inflicted wounds.
An Army which has lost so much of it’s ability to train and maintain itself in a band of excellence.
An Army which cannot execute large scale traditional warfare against a near-peer enemy.
An Army which continues to raise and promote successive year-groups of officers who not only are illiterate on the above topics, but are even unaware of what they don’t know.
We’ve worked so hard on crushing the head of the Zero Defects Army that we have a Zero Accountability Army — and no one of any importance seems to care.
4-star generals hold “solariums” with captains to find out where to take the institution.
We search in vain to find one senior leader (just one) who is authentic. Truly authentic. Yes, they are all very smart. Yes, they are all brilliant communicators. But is there one who is authentic? Is there one who is an idealist with unwavering integrity? Is there one who doesn’t spin language and cares more about candor than “branding”? Cares more about communicating than messaging? Is there one who speaks truth and demands nothing but truth spoken back to him? Is there one losing sleep at night over the state of the force?
I have no problem with any policy decisions of the civilian leaders, just give me an Army led by a Patton or an Abrams. These are the men who will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat despite the cards handed to them by politics.
For Move Forward:
-If up to 70% of youth are unqualified to join the military for a variety -of reasons
Again, standards that are set by examining our requirements of today, which are set by our ability to meet our requirements based on current recruiting desires and and methods and current needs.
– why would we exclude 52% of the young population from registering for -the selective service?
Because they are women. We can meet our needs with men. Women can volunteer if they want.
-If standards exist to enter particular MOS for strength as they do for -intelligence and other aptitudes on the ASVAB, recruiters and assignments -personnel for draftees would recruit/assign on that basis
Assignments will be based on standards that are determined by needs.
– You may have a point about standards changing to fill requirements but -that point existed during the past decade when recruiters had to lower -standards to achieve numbers in some cases. It is not a gender exclusive -issue.
My point exactly. Thanks.
-In my daughter’s undergraduate college dorm room comprised largely but -not exclusively of fellow tennis players, two went on to become doctors, -one a pharmacist, one an accountant, two Congressional aides with one -later selling pharmaceuticals and the other becoming an ATF agent, and -similar accomplishments. We cannot ignore that kind of potential in the -military or in a draft.
Yes we can. We can and we have done so, successfully, for hundreds of years. I know and have known many women who are more capable than me and many men I know. I don’t see this as relevant to my point, which is, we should not be relying on women to fight our wars for us. There is plenty of room for them in all of the services and they have and will contribute greatly. They should not be in combat units, and the logical extension of that – drafting women, is something I vehemently disagree with.
Your post seems to argue:
1. That this is a recruiting issue and we should widen the eligible pool to include women. I think it’s wide enough and the decision to assign them to combat units is a decision to force women into combat and I disagree with that.
2. That standards will limit women participation in combat units. And my point is that standards will change and we will assign women to combat.
3. That we should not just ask men to bear the burden of combat, we should be fair and ask women to do the same. I find that repugnant.
4. That women are very capable. And I agree with that.
5. That women will be assigned according to standards and those that meet the higher standards will be able to “choose” combat MOSs and others will serve elsewhere. I disagree. Assignments are not choices. They are orders under the UCMJ. Standards will change.
I disagree, for a myriad of what I see as objective reasons, with the decision to assign women to combat units. Maybe I’m too old and set in my ways and society has moved beyond my attitudes. Maybe I’m wrong. If so, fine, if that’s the policy, that’s the policy.
The point I am trying to make is that this decision is not about equal opportunity for some, it is about assignment and orders for all. If we ever again go to war that has significant force on force combat, where casualty rates are high, this decision’s natural logical extension to assign – that is, order women to combat units will be realized. I don’t think it’s necessary, and I don’t think it is right. It’s immoral, it’s unethical. It’s un everything and it’s just plain wrong.