Will military's elite commando jobs go to women? Brass to decide
»Play Video
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon's decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat presents a daunting challenge to top military leaders who now will have to decide which, if any, jobs they believe should be open only to men.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to announce Thursday that more than 230,000 battlefront posts - many in Army and Marine infantry units and in potentially elite commando jobs - are now open to women. It will be up to the military service chiefs to recommend and defend whether women should be excluded from any of those more demanding and deadly positions, such as Navy SEALs or the Army's Delta Force.
The historic change, which was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.
The change won't take place overnight: Service chiefs will have to 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, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.
Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes Wednesday 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, many 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.
Objections were few. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, called the move "another social experiment" that will place unnecessary burdens on military commanders.
"While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations," said Boykin, a retired Army lieutenant general. He noted that small units often are in sustained combat for extended periods of time under primal living conditions with no privacy.
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.
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.
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 laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process. Those were to maintain America's effective fighting force, preserve military readiness and develop a process that would give all service members the best chance to succeed.
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 U.S. service members 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.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to announce Thursday that more than 230,000 battlefront posts - many in Army and Marine infantry units and in potentially elite commando jobs - are now open to women. It will be up to the military service chiefs to recommend and defend whether women should be excluded from any of those more demanding and deadly positions, such as Navy SEALs or the Army's Delta Force.
The historic change, which was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.
The change won't take place overnight: Service chiefs will have to 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, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.
Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes Wednesday 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, many 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.
Objections were few. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, called the move "another social experiment" that will place unnecessary burdens on military commanders.
"While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations," said Boykin, a retired Army lieutenant general. He noted that small units often are in sustained combat for extended periods of time under primal living conditions with no privacy.
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.
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.
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 laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process. Those were to maintain America's effective fighting force, preserve military readiness and develop a process that would give all service members the best chance to succeed.
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 U.S. service members 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.
Don't just limit the discussion to physical capabilities, we need to be talking about emotional capabilities as well. Women have long been valued as a civilizing influence. We depend on their tenderness of heart in raising children which is especially important alongside the complementary role of the tougher father. Do we really want women coming home with PTSD to raise their children? It's awful enough we send our sons to war, we want to send our daughters now too? Really?
 @ormom You make a very good point about the PTSD. I wonder if that is a current issue or not.
lol, did you see the women in the video doing push ups? Bro behind them was kind of failing also.
Even when you find those very few women who are physically strong enough and mentally stable and no PMS and can stay away from all the romantic stuff and all that, but boys will be boys and women will introduce a major change in dynamics of the combat units and I do not believe that this change will make units more effective. I would say that for women, there should be girls only units - separate bases, separate facilities, separate missions.
Okay by me...just not on my team....if these women want to be on the front lines okay. If they want the teams such as Seals, Green Berets, etc. then let them do so as an all women team...just not on my team....
 @KHEB First they should have to sign up for SS. Than be held to the same PT as the males.
So instead of sending Draft-Dodging Cowards Donald Trump's, Mitt Romney's, and Ted Nugent's SPOILED-ROTTEN SISSY-BOY SONS to fight their wars they are sending poor American mothers to fight....in their place...
Â
WHAT A EXTREMELY SICK COUNTRY the USA has become......YES, EXTREMELY SICK!
 @August100 Agree, but the list of draft-dodging cowards is all from conservative side - is there a subconscious message you are trying to send by that? Maybe you just forgot to mention outstanding military service records of Obama, Biden and few other top democrats.
Why not. America is use to settling for the lowest common denominator.
Women, being equal, should also be required to sign up for selective service, right?
I don't get why people are so upset by this. Women have wanted to be able to fight for a long time and haven't been able to. I have seen a lot of posts on this subject. A lot of people saying "Would you like them to send your daughter to Iraq or Afghanistan? Why is sending your daughter any more nerve racking then sending your son? It sucks no matter what sex you happen to be.
as long as the exact same criteria is used in judging the readiness of men is used for women.... I'm OK with that
Â
But if they modify the tests like they commonly do for women firefighters...... then that weakens our forces, and thats NOT acceptable.
Â
Unlike that stupid movie GI Jane, the Special Operational Forces will not modify their standards for women and they will have an extremely hard time passing the standards. Like the move Men in Black, âthe best of the best of the bestâ and that is for the men. I guess for the women it would be the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best MIGHT make it.
 @dkgiovenco German KSK has been open to women. Last I heard they never had a women pass the physical parts. Rucking with 75#+ for 15+ miles is hard enough for a strong male.
 @dkgiovenco  @TreeWizard Thanks for your service, by the way.
Â
@TreeWizard I have been out for 12 years, so who knows about the climate change. But if they let the women into the infantry positions, it would only be a matter of time that they would want to be in a SOF unit. That is where it is going to be really tough on them. I was on the Engineer side of the house and all the Equipment we carried felt like it weighed a ton. I was just kidding with a co-worker today that when we did those type of heavy equipment jumps, it was not a matter of jumping out the door, it was more of leaning forward and letting gravity do its thing and that was already being in an Operational Unit. For a woman to pass the Q Course or RIF it might literally take an act of congress and mandating the services lower their standards. For a SF or Ranger unit to lower their standards you are asking for trouble in doing that.
 @dkgiovenco Well sounds like Special Operations has time to say no, till January I think. Do you think they will allow it?
I know, I am retired SOF.
Will big fat old hairy men get to compete in the Miss America Pageant?
I want to be a Hooters Guy.
 @KillsGermsOnContact Is that what appeals to you?
 @KillsGermsOnContact Its called MISS America, of course not.
It could be an emotional conundrum having woman fighting next to men in combat.
@Pointblank    its no different than  gay men fighting together.....
 @kramr Gay are even less predictable.
Anybody who has ever fire-carried a full-size Marine Major with all of his gear through a swamp, or stood for two minutes in a boxing ring or pugil stick fight, knows what women are up against.I support women in fighter planes, on ships, trucks, tanks, but I honestly do not know if they're -physically- able to keep up with Marine Corps infantry for the same reason that you don't see women fighting heavyweight boxers or playing NFL. I have met women who have been in combat and have huge respect for them but I think the DC politicians and female staff officers who have never had to duke it out with another Marine, or the 10th Mountain Division, are going to run into challenges    Still...
Â
Best of luck to our American servicewomen. It has been proven that they make awesome fighter and helicopter pilots.
@Playanekes Hey, now there's a thought: women in coed professional sports! What a thought! True equality. No more separate but equal bathroom facilities either. Shure!
 @jpk  @Playanekes Yeah, why aren't they pushing for no more women and men events in the Olympics. I thought the Olympics was the best of the best, not the best of your sex.
Because they would lose, and women DON'T like losing. At all!
I see no problem with women being in any position...PROVIDING... they can pass the exact same training as the men do. The big problem I've seen in the past is that the women, because they are typically smaller stature, are not required to lift the same weights, run as far, etc., etc. I doubt many 5' 5" 100 lb women could pick up a wounded 6' + 200 lb man and carry them for much distance. I saw the same thing happen in heavy construction years ago when women started working those jobs, but were relegated to flagging traffic and easy jobs. Those of us that were scaling cliffs and running jackhammers looked forward to an occasional day of easy work, which ended when the women started doing all the easy stuff....required by the laborers union...after all they should be able to draw the same pay...even though they could not do the same work...
 @flyingtime I agree with your sentiments... even though there are things that are still out of flux for women. After all, why is it that a woman's wardrobe and toiletries are more expensive than a man's? Maybe we should have everything gender neutral, and call it good. Then we won't know if people swing one way or the other. It wouldn't matter, as we would all be the same.Â
Personally? I really do like the idea of elitist female troops, as I think they could probably get into places that the regular troops cannot. But, putting them on the front line like that? I'm thinking it's a hindrance, rather than a positive action.Â
I am a woman! I concede that a man can do many more things than a woman, but a woman can do many more things than a man. We all have our special areas of opportunity. Why try and blur the line so much?
@flyingtime Just look at Vasquez in the documentary "Aliens". She was just as tough, if not tougher than the other marines - despite her small size.
 @Oregon7812  @flyingtime Seriously?
You know it was a movie right?
 @flyingtime 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others..'