Panetta To Allow Women in Combat

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/us/pe ... wanted=all

Pentagon Is Set to Lift Combat Ban for Women


By ELISABETH BUMILLER and THOM SHANKER
Published: January 23, 2013

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is lifting the military’s official ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them, senior defense officials said Wednesday.
DOCUMENT: Letter From Gen. Martin E. Dempsey
Women at Arms (Series Page)
Related

Marines Moving Women Toward the Front Lines (April 25, 2012)
For Female Marines, Tea Comes With Bullets (October 3, 2010)

Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Enlarge This Image

Lynsey Addario for The New York Times
Cpl. Christina Oliver, center, during a patrol in Afghanistan in 2010.
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (657) »
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 have frequently found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, where more than 20,000 have served. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died.

Defense officials offered few details about Mr. Panetta’s decision but described it as the beginning of a process to allow the branches of the military to put the change into effect. Defense officials said Mr. Panetta had made the decision on the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Women have long chafed under the combat restrictions and have increasingly pressured the Pentagon to catch up with the reality on the battlefield. The move comes as Mr. Panetta is about to step down from his post and would leave him with a major legacy after only 18 months in the job.

The decision clearly fits into the broad and ambitious liberal agenda, especially around matters of equal opportunity, that President Obama laid out this week in his Inaugural Address. But while it had to have been approved by him, and does not require action by Congress, it appeared Wednesday that it was in large part driven by the military itself. Some midlevel White House staff members were caught by surprise by the decision, indicating that it had not gone through an extensive review there.

Mr. Panetta’s decision came after he received a Jan. 9 letter from Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stated in strong terms that the armed service chiefs all agreed that “the time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.”

A military official said the change would be implemented “as quickly as possible,” although the Pentagon is allowing three years, until January 2016, for final decisions from the services.

Each branch of the military will have to come up with an implementation plan in the next several months, the official said. If a branch of the military decides that a specific job should not be opened to a woman, representatives of that branch will have to ask the defense secretary for an exception.

“To implement these initiatives successfully and without sacrificing our war-fighting capability or the trust of the American people, we will need time to get it right,” General Dempsey wrote.

It will be carried out during what the administration describes as the end of the American combat role in Afghanistan, the nation’s longest war.

A copy of General Dempsey’s letter was provided by a Pentagon official under the condition of anonymity.

The letter noted that this action was meant to ensure that women as well as men “are given the opportunity to succeed.”

It was unclear why the Joint Chiefs acted now after examining the issue for years, although in recent months there has been building pressure from high-profile lawsuits.

In November 2012 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on behalf of four service women and the Service Women’s Action Network, a group that works for equality in the military. The A.C.L.U. said that one of the plaintiffs, Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, an Air National Guard helicopter pilot, was shot down, returned fire and was wounded while on the ground in Afghanistan, but could not seek combat leadership positions because the Defense Department did not officially acknowledge her experience as combat.

In the military, serving in combat positions like the infantry remains crucial to career advancement. Women have long said that by not recognizing their real service, the military has unfairly held them back.

The A.C.L.U. embraced Mr. Panetta’s decision with cautious optimism. Ariela Migdal, an attorney with the A.C.L.U.’s Women’s Rights Project, said in a statement that the organization was “thrilled” by the decision, but added that she hoped it would be implemented “fairly and quickly.”

By law Mr. Panetta is able to lift the ban as a regulatory decision, although he must give Congress a 30-day notice of his intent. Congress does not need to approve the decision before it goes into effect. If Congress disagrees with the action, members would have to pass new legislation prohibiting the change, which appeared highly unlikely.

Although in the past some Republican members of the House have balked at allowing women in combat, on Wednesday there appeared to be bipartisan endorsement for the decision, which was first reported by The Associated Press and CNN in midafternoon.

“It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations,” Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington and the chairwoman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called it a “historic step for recognizing the role women have, and will continue to play, in the defense of our nation.”

Senator Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that she was pleased by the decision and said that it “reflects the increasing role that female service members play in securing our country.”

Representative Loretta Sanchez, the California Democrat who has long pressed to have women’s role in combat recognized, said that she was pleased that Mr. Panetta was removing what she called “the archaic combat exclusion policy.”

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a New York Democrat who has pushed for lifting the ban, called it “a proud day for our country” and an important step in recognizing “the brave women who are already fighting and dying.”

But the leadership of a conservative Christian group, the Family Research Council, immediately weighed in with its opposition, sending out a statement from Jerry Boykin, a retired three-star general with a long career in Special Operations Forces.

General Boykin said that “the people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment.” He especially criticized the concept of placing women into Special Forces units where “living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions.” It remains unclear if women will be permitted to fight in Special Forces and other commando units.

Public opinion polls show that Americans generally agree with lifting the ban. A nationwide Quinnipiac University poll conducted a year ago found that three-quarters of voters surveyed favored allowing military women to serve in units that engaged in close combat, if the women wanted to.

Policy experts who have pushed the military to lift the ban said that it was striking that much of the impetus appeared to come from Joint Chiefs, indicating that the top military leadership saw that the time had come to open up to women.

“It’s significant that the change came from the uniformed side, rather than being forced on the uniformed side by the civilian leadership,” said Chris Jacob, the policy director of the Service Women’s Action Network.

Under current rules, a number of military positions are closed to women — and to open them, the services have to change the rules.

Under Mr. Panetta’s new initiative, the situation is the opposite: Those combat positions would be open to women, and they could only be closed through specific action.

Capt. Emily Naslund, a Marine officer who saw ground combat in Afghanistan in 2010, said Wednesday that she embraced the decision. “This is awesome,” she said.


Marjorie Connelly and Peter Baker contributed reporting.

As long as physical standards remain the same, I support this.

[Block]

As long as physical standards remain the same, I support this.

Yeah, as long as they hold new entrants to the current male standard, then whatever, but the second that starts to slide, I oppose it, since they're already a lot more lax than they used to be just for the men.

[Alyeska]

As long as physical standards remain the same, I support this.

Yeah, as long as they hold new entrants to the current male standard, then whatever, but the second that starts to slide, I oppose it, since they're already a lot more lax than they used to be just for the men.

Guess what. Women have been serving in combat situations since 2003. There is no front line in Iraq or Afghanistan. Women have been directly attached to combat units. And I haven't heard about a massive drop in effectiveness.

There are different roles that be be conducted within a combat unit. The requirements should be adaptive based on the role of the soldier. If you keep the infantry requirements high, all that means is women will be "attached" to the unit to make use of their capabilities.

Just look at the Marines Lioness program. Specifically attaching women to combat units to use them in an advantageous role in Afghanistan. The supposedly super strict rifleman standards for marine infantry becomes irrelevant.

[Guardsman Bass]

They could change the standards, but preferably they'd keep one set of standards for physical training, and not just create a second, lower one for women.

[Terralthra]

About time.

[spaceviking]

I thought women could not serve in a few specific areas, such as tanks and submarines.

[PeZook]

They could change the standards, but preferably they'd keep one set of standards for physical training, and not just create a second, lower one for women.

You know, this is actually kind of a red herring, since the military already keeps several sets of physical standards for males based on age groups.

So combat units have been serving with people who are physically weaker than the average 18 year old male...basically forever.

[Ralin]

I also remember hearing arguments, not sure if it was here or elsewhere, that the standards are higher than a modern mechanized army really needs for many roles anyway?

[PeZook]

I also remember hearing arguments, not sure if it was here or elsewhere, that the standards are higher than a modern mechanized army really needs for many roles anyway?

For many roles, yes, although there is a certain wisdom in selecting as best a candidate as you possibly can. Still, in some jobs, expertise might be so important that you can get away with low, low scores on the APFT anyways. Nobody sane is going to fire an expert tank mechanic because he flunked his two mile run, for example: he kills people by keeping the tank fleet running, not by bayonetting enemies. But women have been serving in support roles for a long time now, so this isn't what this decision is about. People are worried women will ruin performance of jobs that DO need physical excellence, like infantry.

Although there have been thousands of female Soviet snipers in WW2 who had excellent performance, and snipers are definitely infantry, so...

[K. A. Pital]

A World War II sniper is an exceptionally demanding role. Snipers in general should be at least as well-trained as the average infantryman.

[PeZook]

A World War II sniper is an exceptionally demanding role. Snipers in general should be at least as well-trained as the average infantryman.

Their kit is lighter, but IIRC Soviets found that women were patient, had great attention to detail, reacted well to aerobic conditioning and could tolerate hardships no worse than men.

Polish physical fitness standards concede on upper body strength (women have it 50% easier on the physical fitness test when it comes to punsh-ups and chin-ups), but running, swimming, leg presses etc. are nearly the same.

[Haruko]

How many developed countries already do this? I remember reading that the number includes Canada, Australia, Israel, and New Zealand. Denmark, too, if memory serves.

I was surprised by this decision, though one of the articles I read on this, "Women allowed in combat: Things to know about US military lifting the ban on female fighters," mentions this (among other interesting details about this development):

Colleen Farrell, a U.S. Marine Corps First Lieutenant, speaks during a press conference Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2012, in San Francisco. Several active women military personnel have filed a federal lawsuit to allow them to serve in combat roles. (Photo via The Associated Press / Ben Margot)

Four women, each of whom had served in Afghanistan or Iraq, filed a lawsuit in 2012 against Panetta, arguing the combat exclusion policy was unconstitutional and outdated.

Believe this adds to the article in the OP of this topic:

In November 2012 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on behalf of four service women and the Service Women’s Action Network, a group that works for equality in the military. The A.C.L.U. said that one of the plaintiffs, Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, an Air National Guard helicopter pilot, was shot down, returned fire and was wounded while on the ground in Afghanistan, but could not seek combat leadership positions because the Defense Department did not officially acknowledge her experience as combat.

[Grumman]

I also remember hearing arguments, not sure if it was here or elsewhere, that the standards are higher than a modern mechanized army really needs for many roles anyway?

In theory, probably, but the US military isn't keeping to the standards on the other end. When you've got people carrying up to 70% more gear than the recommended amount you're asking for trouble, even for the men.

[Haruko]

Addendum:

Public opinion polls show that Americans generally agree with lifting the ban. A nationwide Quinnipiac University poll conducted a year ago found that three-quarters of voters surveyed favored allowing military women to serve in units that engaged in close combat, if the women wanted to.

Indeed. The article I linked to above also mentioned a similar poll:

Most Americans support allowing women in combat.

A 2011 poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News found that 73 percent of respondents supported giving women direct combat roles and 25 percent opposed.

Here is the article linked to:

Most Americans back women in combat roles, poll says
By Ed O'Keefe and and Jon Cohen,March 16, 2011
Seven in 10 Americans support permitting women in the military to serve in ground units that engage in close combat, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The findings come as the Pentagon prepares to review whether women should continue to be barred from combat units even though many of them often engage opposing forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Overall, 73 percent of respondents support giving women direct combat roles, and 25 percent oppose the move. Seventy-three percent of women and 72 percent of men favor extending formal combat roles to women, as do 80 percent of self-described Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of independents.

Women account for 14.5 percent of active-duty service members (203,000 of about 1.4 million) and 18 percent of National Guard and reserve forces, according to the Pentagon. About 25,000 women are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, accounting for about 10 percent of U.S. forces there.

Since 1994, the Pentagon has barred women from serving in any unit below the brigade level (about 4,000 troops on average) whose primary mission is direct ground combat. But it allows women to serve in units that might engage in combat-related action.

“The nature of today’s conflicts is evolving; there are no front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said in an e-mail. “While women are not assigned to units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct combat on the ground, this doesn’t mean they are not assigned to positions in combat zones that could place them in danger.”

Last week, a congressionally mandated commission recommended that the Pentagon end the ban in order “to create a level playing field for all qualified service members.”

The Military Leadership Diversity Commission, chartered by Congress as part of the annual defense authorization bill in 2009, issued 20 recommendations designed to prepare a higher percentage of women and minorities to serve in top military leadership positions.

Verna Jones, director of veterans affairs and rehabilitation issues for the American Legion, said a change in policy would help female veterans gain quicker access to medical and mental-health benefits related to combat experiences. Women often have difficulty proving combat experience because they lack formal combat assignments, she said.

Any change “would definitely help women who suffer these types of injuries and better help them gather data on the injuries so they can get the benefits they deserve,” Jones said.

Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for AMVETS, said his group supports the Pentagon review. “Women fly helicopters on combat sorties, women man turret guns on tactical patrols, and we see female engagement teams attached to line units for kinetic operations,” he said.

On the other hand, Elaine Donnelly, founder and executive director of the Center for Military Readiness, said that assigning women to combat units could put them at unnecessary risk and shouldn’t be done to achieve diversity goals. Donnelly maintains that women generally are unsuited to combat. “Women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive,” if they are assigned to infantry battalions, she said in an e-mail Wednesday.

“There is no ‘discrimination’ problem that requires extreme measures—such as forcing enlisted women into [direct ground combat] units — just to advance the career prospects of a future female officer who wants to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” she said.

Donnelly has studied military personnel issues since the 1980s and most recently led an unsuccessful campaign to prevent the government from ending the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

The Post-ABC telephone poll was conducted March 10 to 13 among a random national sample of 1,005 adults. Results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.



Polling manager Peyton Craighill contributed to this report.

[K. A. Pital]

A World War II sniper is an exceptionally demanding role. Snipers in general should be at least as well-trained as the average infantryman.

Their kit is lighter, but IIRC Soviets found that women were patient, had great attention to detail, reacted well to aerobic conditioning and could tolerate hardships no worse than men.

Polish physical fitness standards concede on upper body strength (women have it 50% easier on the physical fitness test when it comes to punsh-ups and chin-ups), but running, swimming, leg presses etc. are nearly the same.

There was even one woman who led a naval infantry squad, but that was due to her being really smart and tricking the command into thinking she was a male; she maintained the ruse for 8 month and distinguished herself in combat, thereby getting the promotion to unit commander even after the lie has been exposed. Same with several women who either tricked the command or otherwise found a way to serve in the tank forces.

However, large-scale experiments with putting women in tank crews were not as successful as forming sniper squads - few women tolerated the crammed conditions of the tank well enough, and the units which ran such programs had a tendency to stop doing this after a few weeks.

[PeZook]

The history of women pretending to be men and fighting in wars is as long as warfare itself, actually. There were cases in the US Civil War (artillery, cavalry), WW1 and 2, the seven kingdoms period in China, etc.

There's no doubt plenty of women exist who can match or outdo men in combat, especially since guns made raw physical strength not as important. Modern war is a lot about operating machinery anyways...the radio man holds all the platoon's firepower, etc etc

EDIT: Also, the USSR formed three all-female aviation regiments (two bomber and one fighter). Both bomber regiments got Guards status, and the fighter regiment didn't, but performed quite satisfactorily at 38 kills.

But IIRC the US allows female pilots to serve in combat, and has for some time now.

[Thanas]

We do not allow women in frontline infantry but other than that there is no problem. We even got a few female submariners.

[Zwinmar]

Ive seen healthy men blow their knees out because of all the crap we had to carry, right around 130 lbs of gear. Granted he weighed like 130 himself.

As long as the standards remain the same, I am all for full equality.

[phongn]

I thought women could not serve in a few specific areas, such as tanks and submarines.

They couldn't until now, though the submarine ban is being slowly removed (there are women on SSBNs now).

[spaceviking]

Well ya I read the article. I was just surprised women were not allowed in front line infantry.

[Block]

A World War II sniper is an exceptionally demanding role. Snipers in general should be at least as well-trained as the average infantryman.

Polish physical fitness standards concede on upper body strength (women have it 50% easier on the physical fitness test when it comes to punsh-ups and chin-ups), but running, swimming, leg presses etc. are nearly the same.

Which I think is fair. The issue I have is that the current fitness standard for women in the us army is well below that of the men as far as distance running and forced marches go.

[Serafina]

Which I think is fair. The issue I have is that the current fitness standard for women in the us army is well below that of the men as far as distance running and forced marches go.

Which makes sense for non-combat personnel - and the standard for women are most likely based on, since they were not supposed to serve in combat roles anyway.
This change in policy will obviously necessitate a change there too - i'd actually be surprised if that isn't part of the change.

[Aaron MkII]

We have one standard for woman and one for men, both broken down into age groups. For all trades. And from what I've seen of the woman I served with, the issues are almost all male related.

I heard "I've no problem with woman being in, as long as they meet the same standards i do" a lot. And what it really means is "get them out of the military."

[Zwinmar]

When I say same standards I mean a body is a body is a body, do not care if its biologically male or female as long as they can do the job.

Yeah, theoretically there are age brackets were the standard changes, however, in the infantry, that does not fly. Everyone carries the same crap, and everyone better be able to perform or they get ninja punched and end up on remedial, get non recced etc.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ive seen healthy men blow their knees out because of all the crap we had to carry, right around 130 lbs of gear. Granted he weighed like 130 himself.

As long as the standards remain the same, I am all for full equality.

Bluntly, carrying 60 kilos is ridiculous. Even 15th century men at arms in full or partial plate did not actually carry that much. Neither for that matter did roman infantry. That is what the baggage train and pack mules have been for. Militaries through history have, with some exceptions, converged on a standard carry weight in the 30-35 kilo range. Almost doubling that is ridiculous. If a military is doing that, whatever standards they might have for their soldiers, those are not the problem. The carry weight is.

For all trades. And from what I've seen of the woman I served with, the issues are almost all male related.

Dear Lord,

Save us from Chauvinism/Chivalry/Misogyny/Rape.

Thanks,
~ Your Supplicant

?