Military Women

Been There, Done That: Pentagon Formally Opens Combat to Women

Jan. 24, 20130
Paula Bronstein / Getty Images

Graffiti on the wall of with gear on the floor of the barracks where the Female Engagement Team 1st Battalion 8th Marines, Regimental Combat team II live on Nov. 20, 2010 in Musa Qala, Afghanistan.

  • Share
  • Read Later

While Pentagon regulations have long barred women from close-in combat, like infantry and armor units, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is announcing the beginning of the end of those rules on Thursday. Here are some photographs of Marines assigned to a female engagement team – created to interact with Afghan women — highlighting the fact that women in uniform have been bumping up those “combat exclusions” for years.

(MORE: Women In Combat: Shattering the “Brass Ceiling”)

(MORE: The Combat Exclusion Policy: Under Attack)

More Photography from Time

18 comments
  Livefyre
Sort: Newest | Oldest
doubleohh
doubleohh

It's amazing how the elephant in the room is not being discussed.The horrific personal problems that arise when you mix the sheep in with the wolves.The Navy is no longer allowed to keep records of female problems such as false preggys,ships not deploying ,false accusations of sexual abuse.Needless to say how many commanders and nco's shake in their boots fearing an accusation from a female trouble maker.

The big brass is too anxious to hang you to please the libs.(Remember "Tailhook"!) Can you imagine what's going to happen next year when they allow female officers on subs.No close quarters or body rubbing going on there!

Having had three wm's working for me,the situation caused more problems than the other ninety in the outfit combined.


atpcliff
atpcliff

Currently, more than 26 countries allow women in direct combat, including Canada, New Zealand, Britain, Australia, Norway and Germany.

In addition, Israel, Turkey, Norway, Russia, Poland, India, China, Afghanistan, Korea and Britain have females in Special Ops. The U.S. just opened up Task Force 160, an aviation special ops force, to women.

ExPatBrit
ExPatBrit

@atpcliff What you poiht out is interesting.  Most of the 26 countries you referenced are not involved in combat with Islamic fundamentalists - which is my major objection to women serving as direct combatants at this time.  Do you have any information as to whether any of our partners in Afghanistan, such as France, Germany, Canada and Denmark are exposing their women to combat on the front lines.  I recognize that all the women are exposed tangentially to IEDs, sniper fire and capture when they are assigned to duties such as interaction with Afghan women or nursing or other duties - but are these other countries actually sending them to outposts or to directly assault Taliban and/or Al Queda fighters, where they could become involved in hand-to-hand combat?  Personally, I doubt it very much.

nosceteipsum
nosceteipsum like.author.displayName 1 Like

The point here is not whether a woman can fight, or whether she has a right to. The point is would you want your mother, sister, or daughter to have to kill or be killed. Anyone who has, would never wish that on anyone.  Where is our common sense!?

atpcliff
atpcliff

@nosceteipsum

Our common sense is right here. I am paying for the U.S. Military. I want the best possible military. I don't want to artificially exclude anyone, just because they are in a certain category. By allowing women to volunteer for combat positions, our military will improve. There are not enough men in the military, which is why the women have been illegally assigned to combat roles throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Now they will receive the proper testing and training to ensure they can fight effectively.

It is also common sense not to place all the burden of combat on men. American is a nation of men and women, and we should all share the benefits, and the responsibilities of being an American.

ExPatBrit
ExPatBrit

Of course this is all about reducing the nation's military to the status of just another employer.  Soon, one of these women will be captured by the Taliban or Al Queda and executed because her status as a combatant violates some religious restriction of theirs.  The execution will involve cutting off her head with a large knife while she dies screaming, all duly recorded and put out on the Web where it goes viral.  In the ensuing public opinion firestorm this Administration, which is always blameless, will blame the Joint Chiefs for recommending the change.  The Joint Chiefs, of course, not having the b@lls in first place to to risk their careers and say "NO" to a President who insisted on it to please his feminist base (none of whom are in harm's way), will take the hit.  We're doomed, people.

atpcliff
atpcliff

@ExPatBrit

Currently, more than 26 countries allow women in direct combat, including Canada, New Zealand, Britain, Australia, Norway and Germany.

In addition, Israel, Turkey, Norway, Russia, Poland, India, China, Afghanistan, Korea and Britain have females in Special Ops. The U.S. just opened up Task Force 160, an aviation special ops force, to women.

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

@ExPatBrit Tell you what, Sparky...  When you've put your lily-white a$$ on the line for your country, THEN you have earned the right to criticize this.  Patriotism (instead of the rightist's cancerous form of nationalism) does not distinguish gender.  And U.S. women have been in combat zones for YEARS, getting shot, captured, killed and even tortured.  What, you forgot Jessica Lynch?  She's only one of tens of thousands over the years.  U.S. women have been dying in American wars for 236 years! The problem is that they haven't been given the tools to FIGHT BACK.

There in nothing scarier on God's earth than a fully trained, fully equipped, fully ready to kill Marine with PMS in combat against an enemy of the United States.

Maybe YOU'RE ready to put your head between your knees and kiss your happy butt goodbye.  But now at least U.S.women in combat zones will have the tools to fight.  Not only that, they'll be able to go out and get them for themselves.  

Of course, from your attitude, you seem to just want them to be June Cleaver, barefoot and pregnant cooking your meal and making sure your skid marks are cleaned out of your shorts.  Maybe you want some imaginary cheese for your delusional whining.

ExPatBrit
ExPatBrit

@DeweySayenoff  Tell you what Дьюи сказал слишком много, despite being a dual citizen, I did put my a$$ on the line for this country for 3 1/2 years with the US Army.  I was on the Czech border from Christmas 1966 to February 1969.  During the Fall and Winter of 1968-69 we had several Russian armored divisions just a few kilometers away and listened to them start up their tank engines every morning.  If they had crossed we would have been overrun and probably killed - so don't lecture me about cowardice. 

Don't lecture anyone about cowardice unless you know them.  Insulting people instead of answering their issues is how liberals and progressives argue, not actual sentient humans.  Based on your male chauvinist nonsense about Marines with PMS, it's fair to say you're a liberal and unlikely, but not impossible, that you served.

If you don't see the danger that a woman combatant, if captured, would be tortured and killed on video to break our resolve, then you're as disconnected from reality as the child soldiers in Africa who were assured that bullets couldn't find them and hurt them.  With a conventional enemy in a conventional war the rule is probably OK.  This is not that enemy nor that war.

saiditandmeantit
saiditandmeantit like.author.displayName 1 Like

Yes we took WMs (women Marines) out to certain places for certain jobs, even set up cool looking photo ops. Still those were only at low risk times in low risk places. We more or less escorted and delivered them, or you could say they tagged along. Its not like the ladies were out doing contact engagement patrols with us (thank God). Yes there are always exceptions, but if you want to fully introduce women into the infantry, then first get some playing, starting, and competing in the MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, UFC(mens). Then lets talking about the most real kinda grappling, fighting and killing.  

atpcliff
atpcliff

@saiditandmeantit

Yeah, let's talk about the MLB, NBA, NFL, etc, since they are the same as fighting for the military.

The average female is not good enough to get on an NFL team, so women should be excluded, right? I am a WELL above average male, physically, and I never had the slightest chance of making an NFL team. Does that mean that ALL MEN are not good enough for the NFL?

We are talking about fighting in combat, and we need thousands of combat troops....in fact, hundreds of thousands. How many guys play NFL???

Currently, more than 26 countries allow women in direct combat, including Canada, New Zealand, Britain, Australia, Norway and Germany.

In addition, Israel, Turkey, Norway, Russia, Poland, India, China, Afghanistan, Korea and Britain have females in Special Ops. The U.S. just opened up Task Force 160, an aviation special ops force, to women.

iam4
iam4 like.author.displayName 1 Like

I will have a lot better feeling about this when young girls have to register at the Post Office; just like young men have to.  The upside to this is that when more of Daddy's Little Girls start to perish, we will have a long overdue overhaul of our thinking.

It's one thing to sacrifice countless young men---but this country will not like it one bit when as many women die as men

While every death is “significant”, statistically speaking, female deaths have not been significant at all.  The Iraq war resulted in 4,487 Soldiers. Sailors, Airman and Marines killed in combat and accidents.  Afghanistan to date has had 2,031 for a total of 6,518. Female fatalities for those two conflicts amount to 139 or 2.1%.

You can bet that pregnancies will go up the moment women have to register.




pendragon05
pendragon05 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@iam4 Re; women getting pregnant, that is exactly what will happen, and the rate of women suing men for sexual harassment will rise.

wrathbrow
wrathbrow

@iam4  

Registration does not mean active duty, it is still volunteer and the only reason the registration is required is in case there is an extraordinary crisis. But that is not the case right now, so it makes no sense that pregnancies would increase.