Pentagon chief opening combat roles to women

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon is lifting its ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after generations of limits on their service, defense officials said Wednesday.
The changes, set to be announced Thursday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, will not happen overnight. The services must now develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.
Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.
There long has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.
But as news of Panetta's expected order got out, members of Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced their support.
"It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," Levin said.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will be the top Republican on the Armed Services panel, said, however, that he does not believe this will be a broad opening of combat roles for women because there are practical barriers that have to be overcome in order to protect the safety and privacy of all members of the military.
Panetta's move comes in his final weeks as Pentagon chief and just days after President Barack Obama's inaugural speech in which he spoke passionately about equal rights for all. The new order expands the department's action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. Panetta's decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.
In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.
Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and they often included top command and support staff.
The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached - but not formally assigned - to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.
Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs - including some infantry and commando positions.
In the Navy, however, women have begun moving into the submarine force, with several officers already beginning to serve.
Jon Soltz, who served two Army tours in Iraq and is the chairman of the veterans group VoteVets.org, said it may be difficult for the military services to carve out exceptions to the new rule. And while he acknowledged that not all women are interested in pursuing some of the gritty combat jobs, "some of them are, and when you're looking for the best of the best you cast a wide net. There are women who can meet these standards, and they have a right to compete."
Two lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, adding pressure on officials to overturn the policy. And the military services have been studying the issue and surveying their forces to determine how it may affect performance and morale.
The Joint Chiefs have been meeting regularly on the matter and they unanimously agreed to send the recommendation to Panetta earlier this month.
A senior military official familiar with the discussions said the chiefs concluded this was an opportunity to maximize women's service in the military. The official said the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process:
- That they were obligated to maintain America's effective fighting force.
- That they would set up a process that would give all service members, men and women alike, the best chance to succeed.
-That they would preserve military readiness.
Part of the process, the official said, would allow time to get female service members in leadership and officer positions in some of the more difficult job classifications in order to help pave the way for female enlisted troops.
"Not every woman makes a good soldier, but not every man makes a good soldier. So women will compete," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif. "We're not asking that standards be lowered. We're saying that if they can be effective and they can be a good soldier or a good Marine in that particular operation, then give them a shot."
Women comprise about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars. Of the more than 6,600 who have been killed, 152 have been women.
The senior military official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.
If the draft were ever reinstated, changing the rules would be a difficult proposition. The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat, American women aren't required to register upon turning 18 as all males are.
If combat jobs open to women, Congress would have to decide what to do about that law.
The changes, set to be announced Thursday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, will not happen overnight. The services must now develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.
Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.
There long has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.
But as news of Panetta's expected order got out, members of Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced their support.
"It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," Levin said.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will be the top Republican on the Armed Services panel, said, however, that he does not believe this will be a broad opening of combat roles for women because there are practical barriers that have to be overcome in order to protect the safety and privacy of all members of the military.
Panetta's move comes in his final weeks as Pentagon chief and just days after President Barack Obama's inaugural speech in which he spoke passionately about equal rights for all. The new order expands the department's action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. Panetta's decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.
In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.
Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and they often included top command and support staff.
The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached - but not formally assigned - to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.
Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs - including some infantry and commando positions.
In the Navy, however, women have begun moving into the submarine force, with several officers already beginning to serve.
Jon Soltz, who served two Army tours in Iraq and is the chairman of the veterans group VoteVets.org, said it may be difficult for the military services to carve out exceptions to the new rule. And while he acknowledged that not all women are interested in pursuing some of the gritty combat jobs, "some of them are, and when you're looking for the best of the best you cast a wide net. There are women who can meet these standards, and they have a right to compete."
Two lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, adding pressure on officials to overturn the policy. And the military services have been studying the issue and surveying their forces to determine how it may affect performance and morale.
The Joint Chiefs have been meeting regularly on the matter and they unanimously agreed to send the recommendation to Panetta earlier this month.
A senior military official familiar with the discussions said the chiefs concluded this was an opportunity to maximize women's service in the military. The official said the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process:
- That they were obligated to maintain America's effective fighting force.
- That they would set up a process that would give all service members, men and women alike, the best chance to succeed.
-That they would preserve military readiness.
Part of the process, the official said, would allow time to get female service members in leadership and officer positions in some of the more difficult job classifications in order to help pave the way for female enlisted troops.
"Not every woman makes a good soldier, but not every man makes a good soldier. So women will compete," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif. "We're not asking that standards be lowered. We're saying that if they can be effective and they can be a good soldier or a good Marine in that particular operation, then give them a shot."
Women comprise about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars. Of the more than 6,600 who have been killed, 152 have been women.
The senior military official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.
If the draft were ever reinstated, changing the rules would be a difficult proposition. The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat, American women aren't required to register upon turning 18 as all males are.
If combat jobs open to women, Congress would have to decide what to do about that law.
That's all we need - more manly women. Let's all pretend gender doesn't matter. We can have a gender blind society and we'll all still just be okey dokey, right?
 @ormom sarcasm right?
 @TreeWizard  @ormom Not really. One type of soldier bleeds once a month whether she's wounded or not, and didn't have to register for selective service.
 @Playanekes Â
I knew you were a misogynist. It goes to type.
Will women be required to go into the Infantry if they fail another MOS school? That is the way it was when I was in the Marines. If they want to be equal, then it isn't about letting them serve in combat jobs, its making them serve in combat jobs like men sometime have to. When I was in the Marines I was a firefighter and we had women Marines in our unit. One was assigned an administrative job when she got pregnant, another was given an administrative job for unknown reasons bypassing male Marines who outranked and had unit seniority over her. Another was selected for EMT training over male Marines who had rank and seniority over her as well. When I joined the Army National Guard as Infantry I did not serve with any women in my unit but worked with some who were truck drivers in the convoys we guarded. They seemed to do ok but maybe it was because we were at war in Afghanistan and not so much politically correct BS going on. In any case, its not about PFT standards its mission performance and Infantry need to carry heavy things like machine guns and ammo. If the average GI Jane who is made to join the Infantry cannot do the job then we are wasting our time trying to let a select few strong women earn promotion points.
 @jordanvraptor I knew a woman named Veronica who, at OCS, maxed the MEN'S PFT and then ran an extra 1.5mile lap to cool down.  I know another (lesbian) former Marine who weighs 100 pounds and could wrestle a man to the ground and probably outshoot him with an AR-15, but... ...that's two women I know who compared to the vast majority of male Marines I know, who were all former football players, wrestlers, martial arts geeks, hunters, brawlers, thugs, whatever.
Â
It's not that SOME women can't do it, it's that by and large they're manufactured differently. The infantry sergeant major in my family said my grandmother was the best, most natural shot he'd ever seen, and she only weighed about 90lbs, but, one hit with a pugil stick would have killed her.
Well, death doesn't discrimate between genders, so I suppose putting yourself in death's way is okay with me.
Will women have to sign up for Selective Service? Â Same Physical Fitness Standards?
Â
Will there  be same sex foxholes? Same sex tents? Same sex field latrines (holes)?  Will I need to add Tampons to my basic equipment list for my infantry squad?
Â
 @Constitution Warrior You said "sex", "fox" and "hole" in the same sentence. Uh-huhuhhuh...      -Every PFC.
 @Constitution Warrior *Sight* no because that would be equality. We don't want equality we just want preferential treatment.
 @Constitution Warrior *Sigh**
Besides now also qualifying for getting shot and killed, they also now face capture by enemies with excellent care provided to them. NOT. Wonder how we as a nation will handle that situation. OK, put em in harm's way. We shall see what comes of this.
 @jpk sounds like they have time to say no. I hope they do.
@TreeWizard Just as long as they know war is not an action movie or a video game. People actually bleed and die, not to mention the unspeakable conditions when captured injured or alive!
Her lips were moving so we all know what that means...can't believe anyone could be on her side over the side of the parents of the dead people regardless of which side of the political fence they sit.
Sorry too many tabs open that was a Hillary testimony comment...
'Of the more than 6,600 who have been killed, 152 have been women.'
That's a ratio of about 43:1. Â Well, now maybe something approaching 'equality' can evolve. Let's see if women back away from their desire to be 'totally' equal..
 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE How about they make PFT the same for men and women.
Â
I'd like to see flying squirrel woman ninja special forces chop off some taliban heads!
I have no issue with this. If women want to risk their lives then so be it. We just need to be ready for them to come home in body bags. That is one of the big downsides to war. People die.
 @RalphCramden Also if they can meet all the same strength standards as the men where needed. Obviously a pilot probably doesn't need to be strong enough to carry a fellow soldier back to safety but a ground soldier should be able to.
 @FreedomRocks  @RalphCramden There's a five-foot flight instructor in Portland who is also an academy-graduate Lt. Colonel in the USAF with an advanced degree in Calculus, who came back from Iraq and said the mortars kept her from getting bored to death. She an excellent pilot and, you don't want to piss her off.
Â
If she was shot down and holed up, it would be like that Honey Badger video. I say give her an attack helicopter and some targets.
 @Playanekes  @FreedomRocksÂ
Yup, the myth that women have a mother instinct that will not allow them to kill during war is overrated.
 @FreedomRocks  @RalphCramden Disagree, they have opened the 160th to women, and there is a good chance that could happen, shot down chopper.
I do not think that the Secretary of Defense has that kind of absolute power to make call like this. I believe that a decision like this requires an act of Congress.Â
But then again, in obozo's administration, they make up the rules as they go along, so anything is possible. Strange that it happened while they were raking Hillary across the coals. Hmm...
 @theobserver No, it doesn't. There's no act of Congress barring women from combat - it was a military policy. So was segregation - that's why Truman was able to end it with an order.
Â
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a law authorized by Congress, so in that case an act of Congress was needed.
 @Max Quinn  @theobserver But this IS discriminatory:
Â
'The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat, American women aren't required to register upon turning 18 as all males are.'
Nice distraction. Benghazi what?
Â
 @Stogie Feinstein introducing AR-15 bans today while California equips its schools with AR-15s WHAT?  My thoughts exactly. It's almost Rovian in its evil genius.
11 bang bang, here they come. Now you will have something to keep you warn in the foxhole.