Leon Panetta Lifting The Ban On American Women Serving On Front Lines In Combat Duty

[Shol'va]

The out going Leon Panetta Secretary of Defense has decided to lift the ban on American Women Serving on the front lines of war.
What are your thoughts guys and girls. I have my opinion and at the risk of sounding sexist I think it's a really bad idea. Especially as we are trying to fight battles with some guys worrying over the women on the front lines more so than worrying over the men on the front lines since we have a feeling of protectionism when it comes to our women. And that can and will get in the way during a fire fight causing otherwise good men to make bad decisions causing much more death than normal..IMO I have no doubt that there are women truly capable of getting the job done and doing as well if not better than men. But with American men being raised to nurture and protect our women well except when we marry them then it's ok to beat the crap out of them as seen on TV. (Kidding ladies). But seriously I have mixed emotions on this one. But then they felt letting gays serve openly in the military would cause unit cohesion to crumble also but that didn't happen so who knows.

[Armykid93]

Heard a couple female soldiers talking about this. All three thought it was a terrible idea. The consensus between those females was sexual assault and the death of female soldiers is going to sky rocket.

I think its a bad idea. Women can't perform as well physically during physical army tasks requires for combat. Although I think they are better suited for some jobs than men are, infantry is not one. A males body can take the punishment.

[diesel101]

Everybody preaches about equal rights well here it is!
I am with you Sholva(at least on this subject)not sure if it is a good idea or not.There are alot of tough women out there that could kick some serious A$$

[Euroholic]

I did 4 years of infantry. Its a tuff place we were trained to close in a kill the enemy. Women do not have the that aggression that is needed To patrol, make frontal assults etc etc. It can be very stressfull i had 2 over seas deployments so i no what im taking about.

Desk jobs like clerks are better for women they seem to be more organized.

How would it work anyway? Not many women would pass so you would have say a platoon with one women in it yea thats not going to work. Infantry trains you to be aggressive and kill people plain and simple women can not do the role.

Remember the old saying about how real men go infantry and girls do everything else? Well thats as true now as its always been.

By doing this not much will change not many women have the desire to have enemy contact anyway its just to be polictly correct.

Story: new zealand has these laws so 2 women made it to sas selection and guess what??? They failed big time. Not many of the strongest men can pass so what do these women even think there doing?

[Euroholic]

And also id just like to say that most women do not have the physical strength nor the mental strength to do the role of a infantry soldier up to the standard that a army requires. you have to carry alot of gear you get yelled at you dont always get food you do all the dirty work that no one else wants to do. And you no what? The fact that the infantry is so shit is what makes it the best. Im so glad i did my 4 years there and Not some other sub par corp.

[cherrydrpepper]

Women have no business at the front lines. Its really quite simple. We send young men to war because they have no idea of the horrors awaiting them. They dont know what a traumatic brain injury does to someone, leaving them shitting in a diaper unable to move or speak for the rest of their life. They don't know what its like to have no legs or arms, be burned across 90 percent of their body, or other painful experiences beyond imagination. I don't know what rape is like but being gang f-d with a metal rod like that girl in India doesn't sound like fun either. We send men to do the worst tasks because someone has to do it. While I would wish none of these horrors on a person, if you made me choose between man and woman, I would choose man every time. This is what men do. We have been doing it for thousands of years even before we could use clubs. I could go on and on about it but really this is just a horrible idea.

[Euroholic]

The out going Leon Panetta Secretary of Defense has decided to lift the ban on American Women Serving on the front lines of war.
What are your thoughts guys and girls. I have my opinion and at the risk of sounding sexist I think it's a really bad idea. Especially as we are trying to fight battles with some guys worrying over the women on the front lines more so than worrying over the men on the front lines since we have a feeling of protectionism when it comes to our women. And that can and will get in the way during a fire fight causing otherwise good men to make bad decisions causing much more death than normal..IMO I have no doubt that there are women truly capable of getting the job done and doing as well if not better than men. But with American men being raised to nurture and protect our women well except when we marry them then it's ok to beat the crap out of them as seen on TV. (Kidding ladies). But seriously I have mixed emotions on this one. But then they felt letting gays serve openly in the military would cause unit cohesion to crumble also but that didn't happen so who knows.

I just read that last bit bro about the gays. Trust me bullying of gays does happen it just goes unreported. Ive seen it with my own eyes and i admit i even took part in it myself. Not my finest moment nor anything im proud of its just the culture. Culture can not be changed just because a government says it must. These things take time bro. Were Talking about men who are trained to kill and do the dirty work of a whole nation. They are held to a diffrent standard then other people. Doesn't make it right its just the way things are.a bit of insight to a soliders mind is Anything diffrent to the norm is seen as a sign of weakness.

[cherrydrpepper]

Honestly this is such crap. How much pressure could Panetta be facing to put women on the front lines like zero to very little? Politicians are supposed to be the highest regarded individuals in our society but most of them are straight up worthless. I have to question did he do this to grab headlines? Is a man really capable of putting women in harms way just to get a book deal or grab a headline? Worthless individuals these scumbags.

[cherrydrpepper]

We need fat gun control guy to debate panetta and tear him a new asshole like he did Piers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

[The Bear 79]

OK, so we're talking about women on the front lines of combat, in other words, basic infantry, IMO, I think anyone with a working trigger finger can be an infantryman, I know, I know I'm an asshole among many other things............oh well. The point I'm trying to make here is this, a debate has been aroused as to whether or not a female has the physical strength to be on the front lines, well..........the front lines / infantry only require you to be strong enough to lift your own weight + pack + rifle, if you can do that & effectively fire your weapon, then you can be an infantryman, & infantrymen are surrounded by massive platoons & battalions of their peers (safety in numbers). The only place I can see dominant physical strength being an asset is in special forces, those guys most often are comprised of 4 - 10 man teams & are quite often forced into hand to hand / close quarters combat environments, overpowering a 5'-7" / 120 - 140 lbs female will not be very difficult, & THAT is where I can see a female being in eminent danger.

For the record, I am against females on the front lines of combat due to how mentally taxing combat can be,................BUT............if it's gonna happen, I say infantry is the safest place for them.

I know I've ruffled some feathers here & I want to go ahead & apologize to any infantrymen that may feel emasculated or belittled, that was not my intention, you are every bit as important to this county's freedom as anyone else that serves, & I thank you for your selfless service.

[The Bear 79]

And I apologize to any of the ladies I may have offended as well, I know you all are very capable but I don't think you really know what your asking for (the one's that are pushing the issue). Taking lives or even watching a life being taken............. changes you,................. nothing in the world is ever the same again, it can down right break you physically..............especially if you know the life that was taken.

[GirlyGymRat]

And I apologize to any of the ladies I may have offended as well, I know you all are very capable but I don't think you really know what your asking for (the one's that are pushing the issue). Taking lives or even watching a life being taken............. changes you,................. nothing in the world is ever the same again, it can down right break you physically..............especially if you know the life that was taken.

I missed all the rallies and news stories of women demanding to be on the front lines.

I am not offended by your comments.

[The Bear 79]

I missed all the rallies and news stories of women demanding to be on the front lines.

I am not offended by your comments.

lol.........yeah I don't recall any rallies either.

I guess what I should have said is I "ASSUME" there are some ladies pushing the issue.

[Honkey_Kong]

The out going Leon Panetta Secretary of Defense has decided to lift the ban on American Women Serving on the front lines of war.
What are your thoughts guys and girls. I have my opinion and at the risk of sounding sexist I think it's a really bad idea. Especially as we are trying to fight battles with some guys worrying over the women on the front lines more so than worrying over the men on the front lines since we have a feeling of protectionism when it comes to our women. And that can and will get in the way during a fire fight causing otherwise good men to make bad decisions causing much more death than normal..IMO I have no doubt that there are women truly capable of getting the job done and doing as well if not better than men. But with American men being raised to nurture and protect our women well except when we marry them then it's ok to beat the crap out of them as seen on TV. (Kidding ladies). But seriously I have mixed emotions on this one. But then they felt letting gays serve openly in the military would cause unit cohesion to crumble also but that didn't happen so who knows.

I don't think it's necessarily a question of worrying over the broads on the front line. I mostly think it's a physical thing. Let's say you get shot. How do you expect a broad to carry you out? She's going to leave you behind. Plus, I don't know how wise it is to have women on their rags on long combat missions. It sounds like it can be a real health risk.

As far as them letting gays serve openly, I don't think too many people give a shit if a soldier's gay anymore. As long as a soldier acts professional, I don't see how their sexual preference matters at all. I do think that allowing gay marriage in the military is asking for fraud on a large scale. Think about how many straight guys are going to be stuck in the barracks because they're single. They can easily be entering in to "gay" marriages just so that they can get a real apartment/house plus extra pay and sustenance allowance. They don't actually have to be gay.

[Brohim]

tampons in the ruck sack



seriously we need women now in the infantry of all places? let them be priest but damn that is sad if we say we need to send our women to the front lines.

[Brohim]

I don't think it's necessarily a question of worrying over the broads on the front line. I mostly think it's a physical thing. Let's say you get shot. How do you expect a broad to carry you out? She's going to leave you behind. Plus, I don't know how wise it is to have women on their rags on long combat missions. It sounds like it can be a real health risk.

.

there will always be huge bitches. I seen one in the gym last week she was huge. But then again I couldn't tell if she was a he. But anyway I guess if a women can hack the training and wants to do it then why not. The small ones we can make snipers. Hide in the grass real easy.

[Honkey_Kong]

there will always be huge bitches. I seen one in the gym last week she was huge. But then again I couldn't tell if she was a he. But anyway I guess if a women can hack the training and wants to do it then why not. The small ones we can make snipers. Hide in the grass real easy.

I don't think they're referring to sniping as combat duty. Actually, from what I've read, due to the way women's brains are setup, they're actually better at handling the variables in sniping than men can. Thus making them better at it. But how many army broads are actually that huge? I mean there are a lot that are fat big, but few of them can compete with the men physically. The military even has lower standards for women's PT tests.

[Shol'va]

Yeah I'm concerned about the American Women Front line hostage situation with the high probability of being raped. It happened to our regular military women when we invaded Iraq. And they weren't on the front lines. They just happened to make wrong turns while delivering supplies and ended up getting raped over and over. And this was just a small sample of what we can expect in a major war on front lines, say over in Afghan land. Those taliban will rape our front line women something terrible if captured. where as our men are far less likely to get raped. but then again after seeing some of those taliban women, our men may also be in grave danger.

[Metalject]

One of the biggest concerns around this whole deal is lowering the physical requirements to be in the infantry. Physical requirements have already been lowered in many areas of the military to compensate for the fatness of many who want to join. The concern here will be if they set up one standard for women and one for men all in the name of equality and then put them side by side in battle...bad idea, horrible idea.

Like others said, the issue isn't simply being able to pull a trigger, having a tough mind, etc. Most women won't have the physical strength to carry men when needed. That's just a fact. Of those that do, if they can meet the same identical physical requirements there are also the emotional aspects. The protective nature of man that is his instinct will be a problem. Another one, and this isn't a disrespectful comment towards women, women tend to think on a more emotional basis then men, and that could be a problem in the heat of battle. Again, that's not a negative trait. There are differences in men and women, differences that make us who were are and they are important.

[evander87]

Most people aren't comfortable with change especially when it's forced upon them. Many thought the military would fall apart when homosexuals were allowed to be openly gay. Didn't happen. Others thought the military would fall apart when they allowed women in combat roles. Again didn't happen.

You'll have old school brass that will still think the military is the ultimate boys club but given enough time women will fit in and do some killing just like the guys next to her.

A lot of people forget that there was a time when blacks were not thought of as fighting men either.

People are just afraid of change. In time our kids, kids will think is completely normal for women to be blasting away on the battlefield. lol

[GirlyGymRat]

I would shot and not give it a second thought. At least I know I would shoot to kill. I

[thegodfather]

Women are ALREADY on the front lines, what is really being discussed is whether or not they should be allowed into direct combat roles. Women in MOS 38/38D, Civil Affairs Officer & Civil Affairs Specialist, are attached to units at the front lines in Afghanistan all the time. So the real issue is, should women be allowed to serve in DIRECT combat MOS's. I have an opinion like everyone else, except that mine is different. I believe there should be a single physical fitness standard for combat MOS, and if you meet them, you're in, if you dont, you dont get the job. There are 140lb twigs of guys serving in infantry roles, they probably could not carry a 200lb soldier out on their own either, and thats often the exception rather then the rule. One person doesnt carry a litter now do they? and in the cases where a litter isnt available a soldier is either carried by shoulder straps and legs( if they're still there), or by both legs and both shoulder straps, so either 2 or 4 people carrying 1 wounded/dead. I just think it would be interesting to see how many current infantry soldiers would NOT be able to pickup a 200lb soldier with a full loadout, while themselves bearing a full loadout, and carry that person any meaningful distance. Women serve in direct combat roles in the Navy, they fly FA-18s and other jets, as well as helicopters, what happens if they have to ditch over enemy territory? The women who have been serving in those flight roles have been doing so without incident and on par with men. Granted the roles are not completely analogous, but at the very least, a trial program to see how the women perform would be interesting. I'd also be interested to read some actual research material on the topic, rather then peoples anecdotal evidence, personal opinions, and emotional responses. It's rather ironic to say that women respond emotionally to things, and that is one of the reasons they shouldn't be in combat MOS's, yet in the same sentence saying that women shouldn't be in combat roles because our infantry men will be distracted from their mission objectives & orders because of their own emotional responses to a woman in distress and their desire to protect women (which is undoubtedly an emotional response, not a rational one). There is an air of hypocrisy and double standards being tossed around openly in this discussion.

[thegodfather]

Most people aren't comfortable with change especially when it's forced upon them. Many thought the military would fall apart when homosexuals were allowed to be openly gay. Didn't happen. Others thought the military would fall apart when they allowed women in combat roles. Again didn't happen.

You'll have old school brass that will still think the military is the ultimate boys club but given enough time women will fit in and do some killing just like the guys next to her.

A lot of people forget that there was a time when blacks were not thought of as fighting men either.

People are just afraid of change. In time our kids, kids will think is completely normal for women to be blasting away on the battlefield. lol

Yes, we also severely underestimated the Japanese air force in WWII, and in fact the entire Japanese population during the war. For instance,

A commonly held view was that the Japanese were subhuman or evolutionarily inferior. It was an all too common idea among not only the Americans but among the other Allies as well. British Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office Sir Alexander Cadogan referred to the Japanese as “little yellow dwarf slaves” referring to the average height difference between Anglos and Japanese (Aldrich 64). Chiefs of Staff felt “no reason to believe that Japanese standards are even comparable with those of the Italians.”

In one of the most famous, and perhaps most fantastic and blatant misconceptions of the Japanese, historian Arthur Marder thought the Japanese to be inherently inferior, especially in the art of war, for several reasons, one being “because of their eye slits… the Japanese fighter pilots could not shoot straight, and Japanese naval officers could not see in the dark” (65). Captain Vivian from Tokyo said that Japanese were incapable of springing surprise in battle because they have “peculiarly slow brains” (64). One needs only to obviously site the bombing of Pearl Harbor to disclaim that notion. Despite this, the West was still convinced during the early part of the war that Japan was of Japan’s inherently inferior. John Dower offers his explanation:

We were proved wrong at a great cost to the lives of our soldiers, and had to quickly learn. Think about it, not a hundred years ago, women couldn't vote, not 50 years ago, blacks couldn't use our restrooms, sit in our restaurants, and it was a crime for a black and a white to marry. Such notions today are completely unpalatable, at the time, change was hard for many who had a belief system entrenched. I honestly would have thought that people would remember such human indiscretions, and when new social ideas are advanced, that they would use some rational judgement to evaluate them, but alas one of the most common adages rings true, that humans often forget history and repeat old mistakes.

[Euroholic]

Speaking of rasicm i bet you americans do not no that up untill the mid 1960's it was still legal to obtain a license from the Australian government to hunt our indigenous population. They were classed as fauna. I still have my grandads license a federally issiued document to kill people(fauna) how crazy is this??????

[bp2000]

Women are ALREADY on the front lines, what is really being discussed is whether or not they should be allowed into direct combat roles. Women in MOS 38/38D, Civil Affairs Officer & Civil Affairs Specialist, are attached to units at the front lines in Afghanistan all the time. So the real issue is, should women be allowed to serve in DIRECT combat MOS's. I have an opinion like everyone else, except that mine is different. I believe there should be a single physical fitness standard for combat MOS, and if you meet them, you're in, if you dont, you dont get the job. There are 140lb twigs of guys serving in infantry roles, they probably could not carry a 200lb soldier out on their own either, and thats often the exception rather then the rule. One person doesnt carry a litter now do they? and in the cases where a litter isnt available a soldier is either carried by shoulder straps and legs( if they're still there), or by both legs and both shoulder straps, so either 2 or 4 people carrying 1 wounded/dead. I just think it would be interesting to see how many current infantry soldiers would NOT be able to pickup a 200lb soldier with a full loadout, while themselves bearing a full loadout, and carry that person any meaningful distance. Women serve in direct combat roles in the Navy, they fly FA-18s and other jets, as well as helicopters, what happens if they have to ditch over enemy territory? The women who have been serving in those flight roles have been doing so without incident and on par with men. Granted the roles are not completely analogous, but at the very least, a trial program to see how the women perform would be interesting. I'd also be interested to read some actual research material on the topic, rather then peoples anecdotal evidence, personal opinions, and emotional responses. It's rather ironic to say that women respond emotionally to things, and that is one of the reasons they shouldn't be in combat MOS's, yet in the same sentence saying that women shouldn't be in combat roles because our infantry men will be distracted from their mission objectives & orders because of their own emotional responses to a woman in distress and their desire to protect women (which is undoubtedly an emotional response, not a rational one). There is an air of hypocrisy and double standards being tossed around openly in this discussion.

right there homie. If you can hack it then go for it! I would be opposed if it were forced to have women fight but if a girl volunteer's, is a badass like some of the women althletes we see that weigh 160-170 lbs, and can pass the special ops training then im all for it. Same with women pilots and other jobs. If you are good at it then I don't care if your a women. Do your thing

[ac guy]

right there homie. If you can hack it then go for it! I would be opposed if it were forced to have women fight but if a girl volunteer's, is a badass like some of the women althletes we see that weigh 160-170 lbs, and can pass the special ops training then im all for it. Same with women pilots and other jobs. If you are good at it then I don't care if your a women. Do your thing

I agree. The majority of women will not be able to hack the strain of the infantry, but there are a percentage that can. some of the toughest guys I knew in the Army were bean poles. If they can hold their own as say an 11c, humpin all that mortar gear, more power to them.

[fries]

My wife, whom is also a soldier, said "Women fight for the dumbest ****ing rights".

I'm not so worried about the carrying gear and stuff, a body can be trained for that, but what about when it's one or two women sent to a COP that doesn't have running water and they're out there with that one group for a month or more. Hygiene and sexual issues will come from this.

[DSM4Life]

Good topic.

My initial thought is, if women can physically and mentally handle war then I say send them to the front lines. Then you guys bring up a good point about women being a POW. I think the nation would go crazy if they showed women being tortured and raped on video.

[Times Roman]

I'm joining the conversation late, but I'd like to challange this concept of a front line. when was the last time we truly fought a war with a front line?

most of the grunt work previously performed by a front line is now being handled by tech, such as bomber drones. Additionally, most of our wars in the future will not be a traditional front line type scenerio, but instead more of the same with terrorism and fighting terrorists that look like civilians. Our fighting is much more surgical as opposed to everyone lining up and shooting at each other. Expect more delta forces and navy seals. Even airborne rangers. So saying women should not be allowed on a front line is pretty much a moot point in my book. If they want to fight, let them.

Now, with respect to surgical strike units like Navy Seals and their ilk, the standards are extremely high. They must be. If a woman is capable, then I'd allow it. But 99% will not be. They may have the endurance and the courage, but not the strength to jump carrying one hundred pounds of gear, and then have to lug that gear for miles post jump, and lug it quickly. Hell, most guys can't do it either.

Now they are bringing out that same old tired argument of how women in the unit creates tension and will translate to reductions in unit cohesion. This was the same argument when they tried to keep gays out, now they are using it on the women. What's next?

[Armykid93]

OK, so we're talking about women on the front lines of combat, in other words, basic infantry, IMO, I think anyone with a working trigger finger can be an infantryman, I know, I know I'm an asshole among many other things............oh well. The point I'm trying to make here is this, a debate has been aroused as to whether or not a female has the physical strength to be on the front lines, well..........the front lines / infantry only require you to be strong enough to lift your own weight + pack + rifle, if you can do that & effectively fire your weapon, then you can be an infantryman, & infantrymen are surrounded by massive platoons & battalions of their peers (safety in numbers). The only place I can see dominant physical strength being an asset is in special forces, those guys most often are comprised of 4 - 10 man teams & are quite often forced into hand to hand / close quarters combat environments, overpowering a 5'-7" / 120 - 140 lbs female will not be very difficult, & THAT is where I can see a female being in eminent danger.

For the record, I am against females on the front lines of combat due to how mentally taxing combat can be,................BUT............if it's gonna happen, I say infantry is the safest place for them.

I know I've ruffled some feathers here & I want to go ahead & apologize to any infantrymen that may feel emasculated or belittled, that was not my intention, you are every bit as important to this county's freedom as anyone else that serves, & I thank you for your selfless service.

No disrespect but Do you know how much a full combat load weighs?

[Euroholic]

No disrespect but Do you know how much a full combat load weighs?

No disrespect to you but do you no how much they weigh? I swear i remember reading you were intel corp. How offten do you go on patrols? I was a lance corpral 4 years infantry experiance.

[The Bear 79]

No disrespect but Do you know how much a full combat load weighs?

lol............where I come from they can weigh anywhere from 40 to 80 lbs, depending on what you're geared for....................but I was never infantry..............but what I can remember from bout camp is about 70 or 80 lbs, including weapon, ammo, full canteens & pack.

[Armykid93]

No disrespect to you but do you no how much they weigh? I swear i remember reading you were intel corp. How offten do you go on patrols? I was a lance corpral 4 years infantry experiance.

I'm in an infantry platoon currently because everybody else is gone on a deployment right now. Yes i'm Intel but my job is to know what our guys are capable of as well as the enemy, that means weapons systems, vehicles, tactics and such. I have to be able to predict what's going to happen at what time with what weapons systems etc. that's one part of my job.

[Armykid93]

Btw I was in no way trying to be condescending with that comment just letting you know that although i'm not infantry I do know what i'm talking about when it comes to what they gotta do. Could I do it as well as them? Maybe not, I'll probably never find out, my job is far from combat.

[DSM4Life]

70 lb pack is insane.

[fries]

70 lb pack is insane.

I dont think the majority of people have a 70lb pack, with the exception of medics and saw gunners. 70+lb load is realistic. 30lbs in armor, ruck and ammo.

Times I have to disagree with you, for once. I cannot tell you about the amount of sexual incidents we have here in Korea, a place where people can go off post and get tail. Imagine how bad it would be downrange.