Senior defense official: Defense Secretary Carter to open all combat jobs to women in historic chang

[Historic NY]

Source: AP....

more to follow



Defense Secretary Ash Carter will order the military to open all combat jobs to women, and is giving the armed services until Jan. 1 to submit plans to make the historic change, the Associated Press has learned. noon press conference.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced Thursday afternoon that the Pentagon will open all military combat roles to women. The announcement comes as a follow-up to the January 2013 mandate calling for the full integration of women by 2016. “There will be no exceptions,” Carter said, noting that nearly all branches of the military agreed with the decision to fully integrate. Only the Marine Corps requested some exemptions, he said, but were ultimately overruled.



Read more: Link to source

[Plucketeer]

1. Clearing the path

for Hillary to take office.

[valerief]

2. Another big war without the draft. That's how I read this. nt

[enlightenment]

6. Alternately,

it makes a new draft more viable, as one of the loudest complaints would be that women were protected.

Since we're apparently on a forever war footing, I wouldn't be surprised to see a draft fairly soon. The military pretty much tapped out the existing volunteers through delayed separations, and endless returns to theatre in their efforts to keep up troop strength. They need a different plan.

Personally, I'd go with "let's not fight endless wars" - but that one is clearly not on the table.

[valerief]

10. Right. No money in no endless wars. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. Exactly how I read it also.

Getting hard to find enough bodies to keep the global wars going, esp. now that people know of the piss poor care we give to damaged troops when they come home.

[bluestateguy]

3. Uh oh

Elaine Donnelly's one person think tank (the Center for Military Readiness) isn't gonna like that...

[MADem]

4. Finally. It's been far too long, and the impediments have just been STUPID.

Way too much resistance in the name of "tradition." The lash for misbehaving personnel used to be "tradition," too, but we wisely changed our ways.

Onward and upward.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. All jobs should be open to women, so it's about damn time.

[Jesus Malverde]

19. Combat is only a "job" for mercenaries.

Typically joining and fighting in the military is considered service to your country.

[7962]

8. As long as they can fulfill the requirements. NO changes.

This is the military, not the Home Depot. "Fairness" isnt the objective of the military. A soldier is expected to be able to do a LOT of hard physical work while being in the field. If you cant tote a 70lb pack 10 miles then you dont get a pass. Just like if you're not a good shot you cant be a sniper. If a field combat units effectiveness is degraded by being mixed, then I'm sorry, but NO.
Pilots are different; more skill than brawn.

[Bubzer]

13. For most combat rolls its a 70lb pack for 20-25 miles. At least, for "graduation".

[daybranch]

18. actually I remember climbing up and down 3000 foot mountains of rock and bouders with

over 100 lbs counting an M16 with bandoleers and pack containing 30 M16magazines and several hundred M60 rounds, rope, extra water and food, socks, poncho, poncho liner etc.. The climb was horrendous and the descent after a day deprived of sufficient water and shade was much worse as we carried victims of heat exhaustion while avoiding sniper and mortar fire in heat and high humidity with little breeze in the mid day sun. Graduation is a cake walk compared to reality and simulated combat is designed to ensure that your troops survive. Real combat is not on your side to this extent. I go to the point where I said if women want to come along as possible enemy targets then send them and take me home. Then and now I really do not accept that women are better than men and therefore their lives are more sacred and I believe until we do recognize this there will never be equality of worth between the sexes, but at the same time I would not be willing to trade the muscular skinny man standing with me in combat for the typical female soldiers and even female marines I have become friends with over the years.

[zipplewrath]

15. Alot of changes

I can think of alot of changes associated with military prepardness that should be made now. I think the men should have to show something of the kinds of ablities that women bring to various roles. They probably ought to test everyone for hypothermia tolerance, since women show a greater tolerance for this. And men probably should be cautious about sleep deprevation, because women tend to tolerate this better as well. Then there is the whole "pilot" thing. They probably ought to lower the height requirements for fighter pilots (there is one already) so we can make smaller/lighter cockpits. Oh, and women tend to show a higher resistence to blacking out under high g and oxygen deprevation. We probably ought to lower the weight limit for pilots as well.

But something tells me we won't be making ANY changes to recognize ANY combat related characteristics in which women show and advantage. But I'm sure there will be plenty-o-screaming about any attempt to change the requirements that currently exist. You know, those requirements that were established by testing a bunch of men and then figuring out how low to set them to be able to get enough people to fullfill the ranks.


You should read about the Mercury 13 some time. There's reason to believe that women have physical abilities that could be superior to men in combat.

Nineteen women enrolled in WISP, undergoing the same grueling tests administered to the male Mercury astronauts. Thirteen of them — later dubbed the Mercury 13 — passed “with no medical reservations,” a higher graduation rate than the first male class. The top four women scored as highly as any of the men.

[7962]

16. I said flying was different. Women actually handle G's better than most men.

And its more of a skill than strength issue. But the rest of your stuff is just fluff. You dont think SEALs go through hypothermia training? Its great that women can handle some things better than men. I've got no problem with that.
But training is based on real world battlefield scenarios. And that training includes a lot of tasks that require strength and stamina.
Thats why the military is different. The enemies dont care if a male or female is on the other side. They wont make exceptions and neither should our training. Women should definitely get the same training, because they must be ready to perform where ever they are. War today knows no "front lines"
Some women will be able to make it, but most wont. Unless commanders are TOLD to let them make it. And then we've really opened a can of worms. The Marines already tested it:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/10/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units-outperformed-teams-women/71971416/
But I'm sure the fix was in from the start!

Israel has learned from experience; no longer deploying women to frontline combat positions or tank battalions. They USED to, but they dont anymore.

[zipplewrath]

20. The fix is in

All the standards and methods were developed around men and studies on what they could and could not do. Standards and training were developed based upon measurements made about the distribution of capability. Far too much emphasis on strength and an under emphasis on stamina, which of course favors men.

[7962]

21. You obviously didnt read the report.

"stamina" had nothing to do with the results. The total competence of the male teams in combat training were higher than that of the female integrated units by more than 2-1. They shot more accurately and had fewer injuries. They were faster, more lethal and able to evacuate casualties in less time. We have the best military in the world. Its not a college campus and "equality" is a poor evaluation standard. Combat efficiency is the ONLY thing that matters.
People used to point at Israel all the time and say "They have women in front line combat units, so it works". Well, they dont anymore & havent for several years

[zipplewrath]

24. Thet were more "efficient" in a test designedfor men.

What you are missing is that these tests are designed to demonstrate that men are more capable than women. The fix is in. They put more emphasis on strength than stamina, even though that would change the results.

[7962]

27. No, they're NOT. They're designed based on combat experience.

And they are changed as more is learned about enemy combat capabilities. You have NO experience with military training apparently. A training exercise for house to house fighting cant be designed to favor either sex. It can only be designed to properly clear a home the quickest and safest way possible. A field operation MUST include the ability to carry heavy loads long distances because thats what you DO.
As I said in the next post, just read Post #17. Its long, but he explains it well, whether you want to see the truth or not.

[zipplewrath]

28. Experience of men

These are tests designed by men for men based upon the male experience. But I am sure you see no possibility of bias in such a system.

[7962]

29. Gee, what is the main enemy force made of in every war we've fought? Men.

Training is based on what it takes to defeat those men. If throwing women at them was the best option, we'd use it. Its not. Strength and endurance is always better to go out and face an enemy. And its been proven. Israel used to be touted for how progressive they were on this subject. Until they stopped it. Because its not the same.
Women in air units is totally different. Women HAVE proven that they are competent in flying attack & support missions. It's more of a skill position & they've shown they have it. It has not been successful in forward combat units. Carrying a squad automatic weapon and its ammo is NOT a test "designed for men". The weapon has to be moved. Everyone in the unit has to be able to do it. Women cannot transport heavy weapons and ammo for any length of time. Thats NOT rigged. Thats physiology and you cant change it.
Its amazing that you feel a social experiment is more important than having the best force available to us.

[LanternWaste]

32. Historical biases and tradition often prevent the most effective and efficient methods

"If throwing women at them was the best option, we'd use it..."

Historical biases and tradition often prevent the most effective and efficient methods from being instituted. One would think even a semi-rational mind is aware of that.

[7962]

33. Time will tell. Won't be pretty, but it will be telling.

Its just a shame its going to take a lot of killed & injured women before the leadership takes a stand against it. And even then, their fear of non-promotion might stop them. That and the fear of appearing "sexist".
Enough female soldiers are already lost in the positions they currently hold.
No one has ever shown that putting women in front line ground combat makes the unit work BETTER at defeating the enemy. And that is the ONLY goal of combat; defeating the enemy.
I also refer you to post #17, from someone who knows more about it than probably anyone else in this thread.

[zipplewrath]

35. Actually, it is

Carrying a squad automatic weapon and its ammo is NOT a test "designed for men". The weapon has to be moved. Everyone in the unit has to be able to do it. Women cannot transport heavy weapons and ammo for any length of time. Thats NOT rigged.

The weapon was designed, as were the tactics, around measured data about the abilities of men. They set the requirements for the equipment based upon being able to recruit/draft enough men that would be able to meet these requirements. They could have designed the weapons differently. There is a requirement with systems for an "artic mitt". It's a pain in the butt requirement because the mitts are so darn big. If it was designed around women, it would be smaller and easier to satsify. Oh, and the equipment would be lighter too.

Strength and endurance is always better to go out and face an enemy.

And endurance is the more significant of the two. But much of the training/testing tends to focus on strength, which is to the detriment of women because it reduces their endurance capacity, in which they would otherwise have and advantage.

[7962]

38. PLEASE tell us about all your military experience.

Seeing as your answer is so utterly ridiculous, I imagine its nil.
Have you ever seen a crew served weapon? Do you even know what it is? If so, do you actually think they should be removed from service because they're HEAVY? Do you realize they are built the way they are because there is no OTHER way to build them? And how important they are to mission success?
You'd prefer extra casualties just to make a point?

[zipplewrath]

39. I design them

I know why the requirements for weapons exist. I have seen the studies that developed the requirements. I have seen the distribution of capability and how they decide where to place the requirements. Even more so, I have seen the variations from service to service and from country to country. We could set our requirements higher, but we couldn't fulfill our requirement from a volunteer population. Do you know why we prefer 18 year old recruits even though the NFL prefers them older?

[7962]

40. I sure hope you're not in charge of designing a .50 caliber SAW

Because that weapon is always going to be heavy. Unless you only want them to carry 50 rounds
As for the NFL, how the heck can you compare football with the military?

[zipplewrath]

41. For various values of "always"

I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone told me I couldn't achieve a certain design objective.

And the NFL compares itself to war all the time. But you missed the larger point, mostly through active effort I suspect.

[7962]

42. You may very well work in weapons design, although I'm skeptical

Many of the weapons we use today have already been developed for years. And if you really do work in this field, you'd know that one of the requirements the govt ALWAYS puts out is for the weapon to be as light as functionally possible. "Portability" is essential because weight matters to men too. So that argument is moot. If you want to lighten heavy weapons & reduce their capability for the sole purpose of making it easier for women to carry, then there's just no help for you. If it can be done, then show me. The facts I presented remain; putting women in front line combat is a mistake. Israel tried that experiment and stopped doing it.
And as before, go read post #17 for a thorough explanation as to why.
There will be SOME women who can do as well as the men, but not any large number.
Changing training to better suit women is a horrible mistake. Combat is not a social experiment and we shouldnt get women killed trying to prove a point.

[zipplewrath]

43. You still don't understand

And I suspect that is through no small amount of concerted effort on your part. As I've said, the design of weapons involves everything from tactics to capabilities and when you get into the details of many weapon designs, you find many "empirical" requirements that are based upon the intended user, not upon the intended use. That's not necessarily "bad" but it does introduce a bias into the design. It also then solidifies the tactics around the user, not the function. Weapons are particularly "bad" in this sense. Calibers are hard to change for example. There are decades of infrastructure around various calibers. This is regardless of any changes in materials including the energetic level of the propelling charge.

Armies are notorious for training to fight "the last war" and getting their butts beat by an army that basically trained for the "next war". Weapons are no small part of this. The use of small cannon during western campaigns, especially the "Mexican American" war is a classic example. They used them like large artillery and placed them well back from the enemy. It wasn't until the American Civil war that we learned to move them closer. A similar long learning curve was involved in the early use of machine/repeating/Gatlin guns. Armies were often guilty of using them (and assigning them to) as artilary. This severly limited their effectiveness.

The point of all of this is to say that evalutations of sustaining the status quo tend to always show that the status quo is "more effective" right up until someone figures out how to utilize a new capability effectively. The studies we have seen to date were by men, for men, about men and seeing if this new capability was a "drop in replacement". This is the wrong way to evaluate a new capability. New capabilities need new tactics.

[7962]

22. I should just say "read post #17". He has walked the walk.

And what he says holds true today.

[jalan48]

9. Let's bring back the draft and see how popular this idea is.

[valerief]

11. The spike in pregnancies would be astronomical. And the GOP war profiteers

would all of sudden embrace abortion.

[jalan48]

12. LOL. You got it.

Middle class and rich white girls don't need to join, they have other options.

[Elmergantry]

14. Absolutely

Start with requiring women to sign up for selective service.

Woman have just as much responsibility to take a bullet for the country as do the men.

[RobinA]

30. There's Been

precious little "taking a bullet" for the country in the past 70 years. More cannon fodder is, in my opinion, not a step in the right direction. I have a hard time seeing this as a "victory" for women as it has been touted. More like female lung cancer rates reaching the level of male lung cancer rates. Equality in female smoking numbers, but certainly not a victory.

That said, I am in favor of a national service for ALL that offers getting shot at for a...uh...mistake as an option if one is so inclined.

[Elmergantry]

31. Im not fan of SS/Draft either

It basically means the States owns you life. But as long as we have it, it should apply to all.

[daybranch]

17. As a combat veteran Vietnam & Cambodia, I see no problem with women in combat when appropriate.

I am very aware that women can be fearsome revengeful killers and I certainly am aware they are often very superior marksmen. I am also aware that conflicts between for their attention or ego feeding needs to be protective toward them can reduce focus especially of a group of men intent on demonstrating their physical prowess or machismo at that period of their life much conflict and lack of focus and poor morale and as a result of this non-productive competition can result in grudges that can be very detrimental to missions. I am not clear that such conflicts cannot be ameliorated when males and females can separated frequently or as needed into different platoons or even companies to prevent such situations from hurting mission effectiveness. Within the infantry company structure as long as men greatly outnumber females, I have no problems with the physical abilities of women as I often found that many drafted and enlisted men in my past experience could not meet the physical specifications for the infantry. I also found that many men were physically too small to carry the heavy loads imposed on us and constituted and additional unwanted burden as we carried bazooka type weapons, M-60 machine guns and additional ammunition mostly based on our increased size and weight. We were also assigned to carry the wounded back through enemy territory or over very difficult. I now still suffer from a very painful knee injury helping with another man to carry a 200 lb. man semiconscious from heat exhaustion down over a 1000 foot steep drop in elevation over boulders etc in 90 degree heat carrying 3 heavily loaded packs and 3 m16 rifles and 3 bandoleers of 21 to 30 magazines as well as ropes, railroad flares and many extra tools as prescribed just in case and passed out to the most fit among us. If I put myself in the case of the semiconscious man would I want females with lesser upper body strength to try to carry men and risk being dropped or dragged incurring or even being moved more slowly exposed all three of us to longer periods possibly subjected to enemy fire. Just as we reached the bottom and started to leave the area in our helicopters enemy mortars were hitting just where we left. I was so scared and while I hardly ever drank , I got plastered to get over the fear. But one lesson I know is that moving very quickly is often the key to survival. I know that if you are going to attack you put away , food, extra water and anything not crucial to that mission in order to be able to attack swiftly. So I guess my point is I am not sure that if things get really tough I do not mind women being there to share the risk but when certain situations demand great upper body strength or even running speed, most women I have met in my 67years on this earth would create a risk in these circumstances. I know that women have been decorated for their skill and bravery in helicopter and MP operations but I also tell you now that neither of these require the 24 hour closeness of infantry soldiers nor the same strength and endurance needed by the infantry soldier. So I am not saying that women cannot hold their own in combat only that in certain missions and situations they reduce the cohesion of a unit if behaviors are not anticipated and compensated for by wise commanders and in situations greatly dependent on speed and upper body strength such as planned attacks or reactive attacks upon ambushers they are just not going to be equivalent if they cannot move as fast on the run or the crawl and in carrying men to safety moving a heavy man at a slower pace increases his risk and their risk significantly to enemy sniper, and machine gun fire or mortars as discussed. So my time in a regular walking infantry company tells me that women in many cases would be good soldiers if results of fraternization can be avoided, and the numbers of women are small in proportion to men so as to load the men with the heavier tasks that can occur both planned . As to attack maybe you can just find enough fast running women to make that workable. I am certainly no expert on this but if they did not just fool me, i probably could outrun almost every woman I ever met in my youth and I was no track star, although the other guy carrying the unconscious guy did go to college initially on a track scholarship as a pole vaulter. in any case if they can run just as fast carrying their weapons load , I certainly would not have any objection to them fighting beside me in an attack or charging a line of enemy who are ambushing us.
But while these problems may be difficult but tolerable in a line company I really doubt the abilities of any substantial numbers of women desirous of and suitable for serving in the small reconnaissance or sniper teams. Such missions by their very nature increases the chance that when someone is injured great physical burdens will put on other members of the team to rescue them and get them to safety. When one of a 4 person reconnaissance or sniper team is incapacitated the rescue will require at least two individuals with good upper body strength and usually good size to get the wounded to safety and dust off to medical facilities in as short time as possible transversing difficult terrain. When it is just one of the team that is female, then that is not much of a problem but when two are injured, how many women have the upper body strength to get on her knees, pull the dead weight of a man of 170 or 180 lbs over her shoulder, and stand up with it. I would not believe too many and if so how far can they carry and how fast can they carry a man weighing 30 or more pounds than themselves. I really would not want to have woman on my reconnaissance team unless she had lifted weights for years and built up her strength, speed, and probable weight to that of the robust 170 or 180 pound male. If those women are available in sufficient numbers to justify the separate privacy arrangements impossible in combat but expected in barracks etc., I do not see this should cause us to reject women in this demanding role too. But I really do not think women will relish this role in great numbers, nor do I think there are enough physically suitable at this point in history to justify suitable privacy accommodations with men in the barracks. Women veterans today loudly complain about the lack of privacy in VA facilities so I know this is a concern of women today. So I guess I am not convinced that many women are suited for the infantry attack or its immediate aftermath taking the wounded to safety. I would have to see a physically larger more muscular upper body, broad shoulders and bigger biceps and swifter running woman without much fat standing beside me before I could accept her suitability to a reconnaissance 4 person team. In any case ladies, if you can fit in and not endanger the men you are serving with, do your push ups, eat your Wheaties and when you are sure you are as much an asset as a man in the role physically, jump right in. You can do it with enough physical and weight training but most of you are only dreaming when you feel you can march right over take 17 weeks of physical training (Basic 8 weeks, plus 9 weeks advanced infantry training) and be ready for the real physical distress and abuse your bodies should realistically accomplish in order to diminish any risks your performance might inflict on men serving with you in infantry combat. When you feel you are physically as strong and capable and big and robust as the average guy serving in that role now, go for it, but until then do not risk men to risk their lives on the altar of sexual equality without recognition of gender differences. We are your fathers, your husbands, brothers, your sons and lovers, we need your respect for our safety just as much as you need ours. Opportunity is not denied until you have gained the mentioned realistic prerequisites for the role. Work hard if you want it, it is hard, dirty, injurious, frightening and very tiring, as well as providing great exhilaration at moments of combat. I wish I did not have to do it and I hope no one else has too, but it is part of your freedom to pursue your happiness, so if you want it, go for it but be willing to do the hard work to ready yourself for the slog.

[7962]

23. Thank you. You explained it in great detail.

But unfortunately many folks here dont care about facts such as yours and would rather focus on "equality", which doesnt win a battle

[zipplewrath]

25. Unfortunately

I know women in combat related roles and thier primary complaint is the threat from their male counterparts. One slept with a knife under her pillow to be prepared for the inevitable asault from her own "comrades". If there is something to learn here it is that possibly women should be put in gender specific units so that they are not subject to threats from their own comrades in arms. The result might be units that could actually be focused on the enemy.

[7962]

34. Good lord.

"gender specific units"? We might as well start learning Russian or Chinese right now.
You build units based on the best available people, not on their sex.
This is just setting them up to fail.

[zipplewrath]

36. Not up until now

Up until now gender specific units, mostly men, were very common. Heck, in WWII we had race specific units, we're still not speaking german.

[7962]

37. there are differences between men & women. Not between blacks & whites.

I wondered when that would pop up. Apples & oranges.

[MFrohike]

26. Good and sad

Good because it's one of those things that denotes full citizenship. Sad for the same reason.