Panetta Opens Up Combat Duties to Women - Bad or Good?

[Zeitgeist]

You have to see the issue one rule for men and one for women is not equal!

Your presumption may stem from the idea that equality is sought for. It isn't and never was. Fairness and equality are not the same thing. It is almost comical how our modern society tries to bend over backwards to make things equal when the evidence it can never be is staring us in the face.

[RubySlippers]

No I'm saying the fact they can currently under the new policy choose whether or not they get channeled into combat heavy training is a biase that hurts men, if they can choose then men have to be allowed to choose. If they cannot choose then its a policy that is fair. Its not fair the way they have it set up.

[Trieste]

Not sure where this concept of 'fair' enters in...

Ninja'ed by Zam.

[RubySlippers]

Lets see if you get this.

Women can choose whether to enter a combat specialty or not. Men cannot do that under the new policy.

So the new expansion still is unfairly biased to women who can opt in or out of these combat roles and men cannot which is not fair. If women are to be in combat roles threat them the same as any other enlistee or officer place them where the need is if they are considered fit for the duty.

[Trieste]

The fact that I don't agree with your point doesn't mean that I don't understand it. I understand it just fine, but - life's not fair. It's not equal. It's a fact - get over it, compensate for what you can, and move on.

[Zeitgeist]

No I'm saying the fact they can currently under the new policy choose whether or not they get channeled into combat heavy training is a biase that hurts men, if they can choose then men have to be allowed to choose. If they cannot choose then its a policy that is fair. Its not fair the way they have it set up.

As it stands now and has stood since the expiration of the Vietnam draft, men can choose whatever military profession they want and are qualified for. They are not forced into combat roles by virtue of their maleness.

I've seen mentioned earlier in this thread word of drafts. While yes it is conceivably possible in the future, it is so far removed from likelihood as to be almost pointless. We in fact have the world's most professional and competent military force because, for one, it is voluntary. The situation around the world would have to go seriously off the rails for the US to consider a draft. Even war with Iran or North Korea would not precipitate a draft. It didn't with either war in Iraq or Afghanistan and those were pretty hefty undertakings.

So with the understanding military service in the US is voluntary and what course you seek in the military is up to the individual and their qualifications, I see no issues of unfairness or inequality.

Look how quickly gays in the military has become a non-issue. It has for me at least and I only rarely hear it mentioned. Any prior misgivings I may have had about it were unfounded. I also think women in combat roles will be a non-issue. The number of women who seek those roles out will not be large and of that small set not all will qualify, that is just the numbers. And this in no way discredits the service they have and do offer currently.

Where there is potential for issues is, were some to argue the standard for combat readiness is somehow 'unfair' to women and that the standard should be lowered in some misguided attempt to correct a perceived wrong. I could see some rabid Fluke-like advocate foaming at the mouth on capitol hill insisting the physical requirements needed to be a successful combat soldier is unfair and bars women from achieving their aspirations in life.

I am certain there are women out there that can do it and frankly I cant wait for the first report of a sassy blond ferocious woman capping some fundamentalist who thinks no more of women than his cache of cattle. I'll be the first in line to see that movie when it comes out!

[Trieste]

I've seen mentioned earlier in this thread word of drafts. While yes it is conceivably possible in the future, it is so far removed from likelihood as to be almost pointless. We in fact have the world's most professional and competent military force because, for one, it is voluntary. The situation around the world would have to go seriously off the rails for the US to consider a draft. Even war with Iran or North Korea would not precipitate a draft. It didn't with either war in Iraq or Afghanistan and those were pretty hefty undertakings.

Point the first: Selective service is bull; it would currently be political suicide to bring up a draft, and will continue to be for the forseeable future. Countless studies have been published on the fact that drafted militaries serve poorly as compared to volunteer militaries. I think we should do away with the requirement for registration entirely. However, if there must be a registration, there should be a registration for both men and women. I just personally think, myself, that the "women should have to register, too!" movement is going the wrong way with the selective service. Nobody should have to register.

Man, you've gotta stop agreeing with me so much or I'm going to start thinking you're kissing my ass. ::)

[Zeitgeist]

Man, you've gotta stop agreeing with me so much or I'm going to start thinking you're kissing my ass. ::)

But its such a pretty ass!

If it helps: I don't believe it would be wise to banish the option of a draft altogether and I don't believe women should be drafted alongside men, were the almost incomprehensible option of a draft needed. For if the shit hit the fan that bad we'd need to dust off Rosie the Riveter and exhume Greta Garbo. A protracted war with China might precipitate this, yet the likelihood of war with China goes beyond the scope of this thread.

[RubySlippers]

But its such a pretty ass!

If it helps: I don't believe it would be wise to banish the option of a draft altogether and I don't believe women should be drafted alongside men, were the almost incomprehensible option of a draft needed. For if the shit hit the fan that bad we'd need to dust off Rosie the Riveter and exhume Greta Garbo. A protracted war with China might precipitate this, yet the likelihood of war with China goes beyond the scope of this thread.

The fact is over half the population are women, women have more high school diplomas and college degrees the gold standard of military recruitment is a high school diploma it opens up the military to recruits a GED doesn't and if there is a draft and women can serve in combat fully - its fair to draft both genders. Come on things get that bad we need all the warm bodies we can get in a uniform and women are more likely better for the technical specialties.

As for a reason to overextending ourselves in the Middle East would if we get bogged down in a serious shooting war with Iran ,who can and will fight and this includes insurgency tactics, and it gets out of control we will not have the soldiers to do the job. They did draft for Vietnam and this could be a far more serious situation if it happens.

[Zeitgeist]

So if we got ensconced into a protracted war who pray tell do you think would assemble all the material, equipment and machines of war? Shall we indenture our children and grandchildren? Our grandmothers and grandfathers?

Fact is, with the exception of other major Nato powers like Britain, France, etc. our soldiers are worth ten of any others, certainly most of our combative detractors like North Korea and Iran.

Doing something for simply the sake of fairness isn't always the best course of action. You fight a war to win and you don't (with some exceptions) fight it all that fairly. You do it to end it quickly. To do it otherwise is just inhumane.

[Callie Del Noire]

Actually Zam.. they don't ALWAYS get that choice. I know a lot of guys who were pushed to high turn over ratings despite scores that made them qualified for other thing (Such as my own rating of Avionics Tech..we had one guy stop by our shop to ask about it.. he had a bachelors in electronics and the Navy refused to put him in a tech rating despite everything the guy tried..the recruited lied to him.. and he wound up as a Mess Specialist attached to my command.. I got chewed out by the Chief in charge of his galley for pointing him towards the command career councellor and telling him to strike for my rating when he got back to shore with us. Apparently the chief was preparing him for the Flag Mess and was pissed off the guy didn't want to stay in a rating with a 1.2% promotion rate when he was qualified for one that (at the time) had a 100% advancement rate to E5.)

I know a LOT of Marines who wound up being riflemen and I know two friends who only got sent to their schools at the END of their first tour. One spent 5 of his 6 years of duty in the Army walking the DMZ in Korea.. and only got his schooling at the END of his posting..and then they tried to get him to re-up after it. (For another drop in Korea)

[Zeitgeist]

You are correct that there are a exceptions. My own experience in the Navy was such that while I had choices they were limited to a handful of ratings due to the nature of the assignment I was posted. I could be a Boatswain Mate, an Engineman or a Torpedoman. I could have pursued another rating, say Electronic Warfare Technician, but since there were none assigned to the base I was at, it would have been difficult.

As the Marine Corps is the smallest of the forces and that their mission is far more focused than the others, it wouldn't surprise me if Infantrymen out number any other rating in the Marine Corps. That is their function. One doesn't really join the Marines with being a personnel clerk in mind. Don't know if this is still the case but Navy Hospital Corpsmen were assigned to Marine detachments because it wasn't a rating Marines offered. It just isn't their focus or forte.

But it would not be fair to characterize the experience men and women have in the military is that men are thrown into dangerous combat details and that women have an exceptional freedom of choice to choose their own career path that men are not afforded. That just wouldn't be accurate in my opinion. For sure the brass have the ultimate say in what the forces need but in these modern times you'll likely have some reasonable choices laid before you.

[Sasquatch421]

As the Marine Corps is the smallest of the forces and that their mission is far more focused than the others, it wouldn't surprise me if Infantrymen out number any other rating in the Marine Corps. That is their function. One doesn't really join the Marines with being a personnel clerk in mind. Don't know if this is still the case but Navy Hospital Corpsmen were assigned to Marine detachments because it wasn't a rating Marines offered. It just isn't their focus or forte.

But it would not be fair to characterize the experience men and women have in the military is that men are thrown into dangerous combat details and that women have an exceptional freedom of choice to choose their own career path that men are not afforded. That just wouldn't be accurate in my opinion. For sure the brass have the ultimate say in what the forces need but in these modern times you'll likely have some reasonable choices laid before you.

Every Marine goes through Marine Combat Training... And I had a fellow Marine in boot camp that had joined to be a clerk, but the DI kept trying to have him change his mind and go artillery because this dude was built and had to get a waiver because he was kinda tall. They had to special order his cammies, because everything else was too small for him. Great guy to hang around with as well. Navy Corpsmen still get assigned to detachments, we had two that followed our squadron everywhere... I'll have to dig out my one book to remember their names though.

I went in to the Marines trying for Crash, Fire, Rescue and ended up Aviation Ordnance... Wasn't what I wanted, but I had fun and met new people and I wouldn't trade that experience for 14 million in gold coins. Although I'm a little off topic so let me get back on...

I read on MSN news possibly Thursday or Friday morning they had talked a bit more and I guess that for now Special Forces and infantry are still out of shot for women. I imagine that how things go will change that. 

[Zeitgeist]

Thank you Sasquatch for your personal perspective.

As I've dug into more of this I found something I thought to be interesting.

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=119098

From all appearances this was a directive that was initiated by Panetta and by the Pentagon and not from on high by Obama. Sure, it is in the same spirit as doing away with the ban on gays in the military, but I think it behooves people to reflect on that this came from inside the military and that they should be lauded for this move. It is a step in the right direction and the military culture still has some issues needing to be dealt with but I think it is fair to applaud them for the move.

[RubySlippers]

Well my father is a very capable warrant officer and had lots of experience his view if we draft is this. Most women will not be deemed fit for hard combat duties not to their gender but to the required bodily abilities needed to do that work with exceptions. But since a woman could still do much of the other duties including those near combat as he calls them as in driving trucks, medics and others where they are now and those out of combat it frees up a man to serve in combat.

For every woman who drives a truck or is a medic or can work at a base or at home doing something non-combat a man can serve in combat and men with training are more likely more suited to combat. It in the long run allows for double the bodies and more bodies for hard combat regardless of gender and where they go. And in a general war if its not nuclear we may need every body we can get and its sheet numbers adding women to the pool is vital.

[Zeitgeist]

Well my father is a very capable warrant officer and had lots of experience his view if we draft is this. Most women will not be deemed fit for hard combat duties not to their gender but to the required bodily abilities needed to do that work with exceptions. But since a woman could still do much of the other duties including those near combat as he calls them as in driving trucks, medics and others where they are now and those out of combat it frees up a man to serve in combat.

For every woman who drives a truck or is a medic or can work at a base or at home doing something non-combat a man can serve in combat and men with training are more likely more suited to combat. It in the long run allows for double the bodies and more bodies for hard combat regardless of gender and where they go. And in a general war if its not nuclear we may need every body we can get and its sheet numbers adding women to the pool is vital.

Your father is indeed correct. As I am sure he knows, and you know there were women aplenty during WWII and later who signed up willingly and to their credit, to take on those non-combative tasks. A draft that included women wasn't needed, was it? I suspect it wouldn't be in the future either. If by chance enough women didn't sign up, then maybe, just maybe a draft would be called for. I don't see any reason why we need not cross that bridge if and until it presents itself.

Don't think I completely disagree with you. It does on the surface seem fair and reasonable to draft both men and women if we are to open the ranks to women for combat. But we'd need to allocate resources intelligently and in time of total war 'fair' isn't in my opinion a foremost consideration. Ending it as efficiently possible is.

[Teo Torriatte]

Having lived with two women who could have easily bench pressed me, I am inclined to say that if someone is physically capable of the job and wants to do it, they should be able to do it no matter what their gender. It is probably true that there are fewer women that have the physique to be, say, a Navy SEAL, but for those that are, I say let them join. The ones who aren't will be weeded out just like men who aren't physically capable are weeded out.