Officials: Military likely to open most combat jobs to women

[eddo36 16]

First Lieutenant Shaye Haver and Captain Kristen Griest passed Ranger School

 

MilitaryTimes â€” Two women have now passed the Army's grueling Ranger test, and even tougher and more dangerous jobs could lie ahead. The military services are poised to allow women to serve in most front-line combat jobs, including special operations forces, senior officials told The Associated Press.

 

Based on early talks, officials say the Army, Navy and Air Force likely will not seek exceptions that close any jobs to women. Marine Corps leaders, they say, have expressed concerns about allowing women to serve in infantry jobs and yet may seek an exception.

 

The services are wrapping up reviews and must make their recommendations to Defense Secretary Ash Carter this fall. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the internal debate.

Even if Marine leaders object, they are likely to meet resistance from senior Navy and Defense Department officials who want the military to be united on this issue.

 

Undercutting the Marines' reservations is that Special Operations Command is likely to allow women to compete for the most demanding military commando jobs — including the Navy SEALs and the Army's DeltaForce — though with the knowledge that it may be years before women even try to enter those fields.

 

Women have been steadily moving into previously all-male jobs across the military, including as members of the Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, best known as the helicopter crews that flew Navy SEALs into Osama bin Laden's compound. Women are also now serving on Navy submarines and in Army artillery units.

 

Friday will mark another milestone as the two women graduate at Fort Benning, Georgia, from the Ranger school, a physically and mentally demanding two-month combat leadership course. Completing the course lets the two women wear the coveted Ranger black-and-gold tab, but it does not let them become members of the Ranger regiment. Neither woman has been publicly identified by the military.

 

Longer term, the uncertainty of the Marine decision underscores the wrenching debates going on within the military over the changing role of women, and it reflects the individual identities of the services and how they view their warrior ethos.

 

Only a handful of jobs in the Navy and Air Force are currently closed to women.

 

Last year the Navy considered seeking an exception that would have prohibited women from serving on older guided missile frigates, mine-countermeasure ships and patrol coast craft. Some argued that those ships, which are due to be phased out in coming years, would need millions of dollars in construction to add facilities for women and it wasn't worth the expense.

 

But Navy Secretary Ray Mabus withdrew that plan in a memo late last month that was obtained by the AP. Officials said Navy leaders concluded that since women can serve in all the same jobs on other ships no real exclusion existed.

 

The Army and Marine Corps, however, have thousands of infantry, artillery and armor jobs that are currently closed to women. There has been a lot of study and debate over whether to open those positions, because they often involve fighting in small units on the front lines, doing physically punishing tasks.

 

The Marine Corps set up a task force this year to set gender-neutral job standards and determine whether incorporating women into small squads affected unit cohesion or combat readiness. Companies made up of all men and mixes of men and women spent up to three months in California performing a broad range of unit tasks and going through detailed scientific evaluations to see how they did. Senior leaders are reviewing those results.

 

Army leaders did similar scientific analysis, reviewing all tasks needed to do the combat jobs and have been creating gender-neutral standards that troops will have to meet in order to qualify. Meanwhile, however, the Army began to slowly open some combat positions, including artillery jobs, to women.

 

In recent days, officials familiar with the discussions said they believe the Army will allow women to seek infantry and armor jobs as well.

 

Gen. Ray Odierno, who retired last week as Army chief of staff, hinted at that conclusion.

 

"In order to best manage your talent, you have to pick the best people who can perform to the standards that we have established," Odierno said. "If you can meet the standards that we've established, then you should be able to perform in that (position). And I think that's where we're headed."

 

In January 2013 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed an order wiping away generations of limits on women fighting for their country, ordering a quarter-million positions open regardless of gender. They called for sweeping reviews of the physical requirements for combat jobs and gave the military services until January 2016 to argue if any positions should remain closed to women.

 

Throughout the process, all the services have made it clear they will not reduce any standards to allow women to qualify for the most demanding jobs. But they reviewed the requirements for the various combat posts to make sure they were directly related to tasks that had to be done as part of the jobs.

 

During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, thousands of women served and fought, and about 160 died.

 

Dempsey told reporters during that 2013 news conference that he did not rule out women serving as members of special operations forces, although it might be years before they actually qualified.

 

"I think we all believe that there will be women who can meet those standards," he said.

[spooky lynx 73]

One question: why?

[Tonci87 163]

Why not?

 

My stance on this is, if a woman is fit and strong enough to carry a man to safety and able to endure everything their male comrades do then she should be allowed to serve with them.

[spooky lynx 73]

Why not?

 

My stance on this is, if a woman is fit and strong enough to carry a man to safety and able to endure everything their male comrades do then she should be allowed to serve with them.

If a significant amount of them can do this without lowering of standards and requirements - yes, why not. If a couple of them can (like those butches in the first post) - than it's stupid waste of taxes on re-organizing for sake of damned political correctness.

[Tonci87 163]

Those "butches" might be pioneering for many more to come.

[R0adki11 3949]

If a significant amount of them can do this without lowering of standards and requirements - yes, why not. If a couple of them can (like those butches in the first post) - than it's stupid waste of taxes on re-organizing for sake of damned political correctness.

There is need for such language on these forums, sexism is not appropriate.

 

In my personal opinion women have the right to serve in combat roles if they desire to.

[spooky lynx 73]

Like it or not, but males and females are different. And there are roles that suit well only either for males or for females, of course if the best result is needed. Even here it was discussed, also I remember the same discussion at passed away mp.net forums where those who do serve in armed forces for a long time honestly say that it is impossible to put females for all the same male roles in army without lowering standards, adding extra facilities for women etc. Otherwise there would be only a few females who are able to meet requirements (I mean physical). And tons of money spent on changing many documents, manuals, laws etc. If females in masses could really fit male roles, there would be mixed sports teams in football, basketball, hockey, joint athletics competitions etc. But still there are no such things. So why do some people think females can serve well in the roles that is performed by males in army, especially when army service and combat tours are much harder that sports?

BTW dual service is practiced either during the total war (like in USSR during WW2) or in the countries that are surrounded by hostiles like Israel. What hostile countries surround USA? Or does it prepare to another world war?

[Tonci87 163]

But in this case the women did meet the same requirements as the men, so I really don´t see a problem with it.

[spooky lynx 73]

The problem is that they still have some... ehm... physiological particularities that don't help in combat service at all unless they are on hormones or steroids. Also I suppose there is a large number of documents and instructions that is to be changed, and this costs some money. All this in sum makes the value of few females in combat assets very questionable.

[chortles 263]

Have yourself numbers coming from a self-declared classmate of 1LT Haver and CPT Griest in their starting class 06-15 (both were twice recycled and graduated in 08-15).

[Caselius 94]

We in Finland have had that for some time (20 years) as voluntary conscription.

 

From what I've heard and read, the women have been as motivated and mainly in same shape as the men. Majority of female soldiers here take either reserve NCO or officer studies which tells a lot from their motivation. I don't think disallowing females in combat does have anything to do with their capability to fight as long the requirements and training is the same for everyone.