Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

Washington - Panetta Opens Combat Roles To Women

Published on: January 23, 2013 03:16 PM
By: AP
Change text size Text Size  
Bookmark and Share
Pfc. Brandie Leon, 101st Airborne Division, patrols Baghdad, Iraq, in March 2006 (photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Bart A. Bauer).Pfc. Brandie Leon, 101st Airborne Division, patrols Baghdad, Iraq, in March 2006 (photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Bart A. Bauer).

Washington - Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military’s ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

Advertisement:

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.


More of today's headlines

Washington - The White House on Wednesday renewed its call for a resumption of long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations in the wake of Israeli elections in... Washington - Joe Biden is thanking Democratic supporters in the afterglow of President Barack Obama's second inauguration, dropping plenty of hints that he may try to...

 

You can now automatically hide comments - New!

Don't worry, you can always display comments when you need to.

Total13

Read Comments (13)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Jan 23, 2013 at 05:01 PM Anon Ibid Opcit Says:

If a woman can do the job, more power to her.

2

 Jan 23, 2013 at 06:33 PM moti Says:

Um.... every society on earth limits women in combat. Why? Simple - more vulnerable to violation/attack if captured and the proof is sadly throughout history. This is "PC" gone mad.

3

 Jan 23, 2013 at 06:41 PM Anonymous Says:

Lots of men soldiers come back from combat messed up mentally, I wonder what impact this will have on women soldiers when they will return.

4

 Jan 23, 2013 at 08:04 PM Anonymous Says:

Firstly, women are inferior and lack the physical stature of men which means that our army will be weaker.
Secondly, this just means men and women will be sleeping together on the front lines thus distracting our troops even further from the battle.

5

 Jan 23, 2013 at 09:34 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #4  
Anonymous Says:

Firstly, women are inferior and lack the physical stature of men which means that our army will be weaker.
Secondly, this just means men and women will be sleeping together on the front lines thus distracting our troops even further from the battle.

On the plus side, those Muslims probably won't appreciate being killed by women....hahahah

6

 Jan 23, 2013 at 10:26 PM Anonymous Says:

If women can serve in combat units in EY, there is no reason for them not to do so here in America, assuming they can meet the physical requirements. And to those sick minds who worry about them "sleeping together" on the fornt lines, I can assure you that the last thing someone at risk of attacks thinks about is the gender of someone with whom they share a bunker. If having someone of the opposite sex makes them less stressed, that is only for the better.

7

 Jan 23, 2013 at 11:11 PM enlightened-yid Says:

Reply to #4  
Anonymous Says:

Firstly, women are inferior and lack the physical stature of men which means that our army will be weaker.
Secondly, this just means men and women will be sleeping together on the front lines thus distracting our troops even further from the battle.

Where have you been in past decade? If women already don't serve in combat, can you explain to me how in the world over 100 women died while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan? You are repeating antiquated views about women. NATO countries like Denmark, Germany, Sweden and few others have men and women serving together on forward bases and in combat units in Afghanistan for past 10 years. None of your fantasies came true. The difference is these European countries are very progressive and they don't get their panties excited about men and women sharing same roles and living spaces. They seem to raise more mature societies.

8

 Jan 23, 2013 at 11:33 PM PaulinSaudi Says:

Could we limit the discussion to those of us who have in fact been shot at while in uniform? Thanks.

9

 Jan 24, 2013 at 12:23 AM fedorah Says:

Reply to #4  
Anonymous Says:

Firstly, women are inferior and lack the physical stature of men which means that our army will be weaker.
Secondly, this just means men and women will be sleeping together on the front lines thus distracting our troops even further from the battle.

"women are inferior". say that to your mother, wife, or daughter, to her face and see how she will react. Attitudes like that push them to the feminism you likely despise.

10

 Jan 24, 2013 at 03:27 AM Shlomo-1 Says:

Reply to #4  
Anonymous Says:

Firstly, women are inferior and lack the physical stature of men which means that our army will be weaker.
Secondly, this just means men and women will be sleeping together on the front lines thus distracting our troops even further from the battle.

First, physical standards in the military now are greater than they were for men a during the Vietnam War. While there are differences, simple strength (which you probably mean by "physical stature") isn't the only measure. Stamina, flexibility, stress response, pain threshold, etc. all play a part in the ability to execute a mission.
Second, "front lines" is less of an issue in the types of military action we face now. Traditional battle lines between standing armies are the exception. If you look at the reports from Afghanistan and Iraq, many of the injuries were to support troops and not combat troops.
A move like this reduces the hypocrisy of pay and promotion opportunities for women when, in reality, they've been performing in de facto combat roles for years.

11

 Jan 24, 2013 at 07:59 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #8  
PaulinSaudi Says:

Could we limit the discussion to those of us who have in fact been shot at while in uniform? Thanks.

No, we can't. Living in today's society is just as dangereous as being in the army.

12

 Jan 24, 2013 at 10:50 AM Be Practical Says:

I don't necessraily agree that women don't have the upper body strength of men. There are some women who are weight lifters, and are just as strong as their male counterparts. Further, I agree that women should serve in certain combat roles such as military police, guarding installations, intelligence, artillery, transport, and fighter pilots. Women have served as fighter pilots in combat. For example, after 9/11/01, they helped bomb terrorist bases in Afghanistan. However, to place women in confined combat quarters with men (such as in a tank), is just not practical, unless certain tanks crews are all female.

13

 Jan 24, 2013 at 04:35 PM Robert Says:

Reply to #4  
Anonymous Says:

Firstly, women are inferior and lack the physical stature of men which means that our army will be weaker.
Secondly, this just means men and women will be sleeping together on the front lines thus distracting our troops even further from the battle.

you obviously have never been in the army

14

Sign-in to post a comment

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!