Should Women Be Allowed in Combat Roles?
U.S. defense officials last week gave the green light to women taking on the same combat jobs that are open to their male counterparts. Tell us if you agree with the policy change.
Photos
Women in the U.S. military could one day become members of the elite special operations forces and take on other combat roles previously reserved only for men.
The Associated Press reported last week that American defense officials signed an order overturning a nearly two-decade-old rule that prohibited women from being assigned thousands of jobs in the areas of front-line artillery, infantry, special operations and more.
Military officials will now have until mid-May to develop plans for allowing women to seek the once-prohibited combat positions, but three years to make cases for certain positions remaining closed to women.
Some are skeptical of the change in policy. In a column published on CNN, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin says allowing women to serve in combat roles “crosses a line worthy of greater deliberation and public debate” and is effectively “testing a hypothesis that may impair the military effectiveness of our ground forces.”
“The American public … should not sit back and leave the brave members of our armed forces susceptible to the whims of ideology,” Boykin writes. “Men and women can serve together in the armed forces productively, but that service needs to be prudently structured in a manner that reflects the differences between the sexes and the power of their attractions.”
George Will on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos questioned whether military leaders would change physical fitness requirements so the presence of women on the battlefield won’t have a negative impact.
“You’re 6’4″, 240-pound Marine, and you’re injured, and you need a Marine next to you to carry you back to safety, and the Marine next to you is a 5’4″ woman who weighs 115 pounds. It’s relevant,” Will said.
David Wood, senior military correspondent for The Huffington Post, says he experienced firsthand one of the jobs currently closed to women—gun loader on an M1A2 Abrams tank. Despite the physicality of that job, he thinks it’s one a female soldier could be capable of doing.
“Tank loader and Marine rifleman are two of those jobs currently closed to women,” Wood writes. “Judging by my experience, at least, I see no reason why women couldn't do either.
“But it ain't easy.”
Should women in the U.S. military be allowed in combat roles?
Share what’s on your mind with us, and then return here to see what your neighbors in Paulding, Douglas and Cobb have said.
Richard m. Olivo
7:10 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
I would hate to be a American women wounded in combat! Can you imagin what those nasty muslim animals would do to an American women! She'll be raped for days by hundreds of those animals.she could omly pray they would kill her but they wouldn't because her mind would be destroyed forever and that's what the enemy is all about. Goooood luck on that one.
Brian
8:29 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
As mentioned to Paulding County resident, I think it's more acceptable if you say
"islamic fundamentalist militant" versus "muslim". Most muslims are peaceful and not fundamentalists. Just as there are islamic fundamentalists, there are sects of Christianity
and judaism in history that are no more tolerant toward freedom of women. There are christian soldiers who have committed rape. By
saying "muslim", you are probably unintentionally discriminating against over a billion people
and just fueling hatred.
Paulding County resident and parent
9:37 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
I am a woman and am the first to admit that women are not built for combat as men are. Men were designed to be the aggressive side of humanity. They are geared for it. Woman are the nurturers. Argue all you want about it but that is the truth and we were created by God for the purpose of having children and caring for the home. Not to say that women are not as smart as men but women are not as STRONG as men. And women CANNOT work alongside a man in a combat situation and NOT put that man at more risk. It is just wrong and it will ultimately weaken our military. . Since most liberals despise the military, I have to wonder if that is not their end purpose. Get political correctness out of the equation. We are talking about a life and death situation for these soldiers and God help the woman captured by a Muslim. As said in the prior comment, she will want to die but won't be killed until they are finished with her. Women have a purpose in the Muslim culture, and it isn't being equal to men.
Brian
8:41 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
I think both men and women act as nurturers in today's culture. Neither men or women are any less emotionally equipped since it depends on the individual. War is a terrible thing and the fact people are hesitant to send women shows how horrible it is in the first place. There is, however, no reason why men should have to directly endure it any more than women. It is equally traumatic for men. No one should have to endure it.
For survival of species, in a more primal sense, men are more expendable than
women simply because women can only have one child at a time and men can
have many. However, in today's complicated social culture, both are equally
important to keep society moving.
As far as strength, in general men are stronger and faster than women. However, I'm sure there are women there are women who are stronger and faster than most men. Also, martial arts and other practices teach how to level the playing field. Some of this is part of basic training. Any woman put in front line combat roles need to meet the requirements, just as any man does.
I recall reading that there are already loopholes women use to get around current restrictions. They just aren't recognized for their courage.
I think mitigating rape risks should be important (happens to captured men as well) and don't forget sexual harassment from american soldiers on the same side. I get into that in my own comment below.
Brian
8:42 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
On the muslim front, I think it's more acceptable if you say "islamic fundamentalist militant" versus "muslim". Most muslims are peaceful and not fundamentalists. Just as there are islamic fundamentalists, there are
sects of Christianity and judaism in history that are no more tolerant toward freedom of women. There are christian soldiers who have committed rape. By
saying "muslim", you are probably unintentionally discriminating against over a
billion people and just fueling hatred
Brian
7:50 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
If they can handle the training and demands without putting others at unnecessary risk, then sure.
Btw, I think the aformentioned potentials of rape against women captured in battle mentioned by the previous two comments should be considered. Rape and torture could happen to men, but rape is much more likely to happen to women captured. I think there needs to be some consideration of how to minimize risk. Women shouldn't be forced into situations of high risk for this and if they choose to go into something at high risk, they probably should be given cyanide capsules to take with them in case they are captured (then it's up to them what the next steps are)
Don't forget risks presented by members of their own side as well. In primal conditions, American male soldiers could rape or sexually harass American female soldiers as well. I don't think there needs to be separation of sexes in the front line (that isn't even feasible) but group leaders need to have their eyes open for cases like this. Women may not even report it out of embarassment.
I'm sure that the leaders of the military are considering all these things as they submit their proposals and cases that they don't feel comfortable women serving in certain roles.
Brian
11:00 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I'd like to add that I'm not a fan of war at all. I just believe in equality.
Women have been fighting in wars since even before Joan of Arc. They typically just made themselves look like men when women fighters weren't accepted. In times they were accepted, perhaps you'd find women in mercenary armies. It's not a common thing but there's always a few and they deserve the right to serve if they so choose.
Hopefully, eventually, war goes away.
Charles Schwable
8:44 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Does it really Matter? Anybody old enough to remember the WAC's or Wave's of the WWII era?
Tammy
4:26 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I really hate the fighting and Im not for the military but if a woman is crazy enough to go out their then let her! Its her right to choose what she wants to do. I personally would not go out their no matter what. Well except if my kids were being hurt.
Brian
11:02 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I gave my opinion above, but the bigger question is why are we still having wars? When does our global society evolve to the point war is no longer necessary?
I guess as long as we have a*h*les that will sacrifice their own people to better their interests, we'll have war. Hopefully, someday, jerks like that disappear.
Tammy
11:06 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I agree with Brian. What's the point to keep fighting!?! It needs to stop!
Megan King
11:21 am on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
I am a Women who has joined the Army as a Combat Medic recently and i think that this lift was one of the best things ever! I want to serve my country and i know that with my training and discipline i can perform just as well as any mail out there maybe even better then some. So to those of you who say men can do it better, they really are not built any better for combat than a female. Men may have a better muscle structure but women with the same training can perform just as well. The time for the war to end has come and gone long ago but we will fight till our country is safe from any harm and you should be greatfull that there are people that are out there that will risk their lives to protect you and your families!
PFC KING
Observer
12:29 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
"i can perform just as well as any mail out there maybe even better then some"
This is just hubris on your part. There is no way you can have the physical strength and stamina of your average 20 something year old male Combat Infantry Soldier.
Your desire to serve is commendable, but it should not be allowed to endanger the lives of others who have chosen to serve.
Brian
1:45 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
The battlefield is a bit more technological now than a couple guys wrestling with knives in hand, and being 280 lbs of muscle isn't going to help you when you are blown up by a mortar.
Christopher Hoalt
2:33 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
LOL@ your use of hubris yet you refer to men as mail's....
Observer
2:57 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
EPIC FAIL! on your part, Christhoper. If you had the ability to read you would see that the phase is in quotations is taken directly from Megan King's posting.
I suppose I could have use the editorial (sic) notation to draw attention to her misspelling, but I understood her and felt no need to point out the obvious, unlike you Christopher.