Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat

[dbroncos78087]

Washington (CNN) -- A Pentagon commission on diversity is recommending the U.S. military end its ban on women serving in direct combat roles -- a restriction the group says is discriminatory and out of touch with the demands of modern warfare.

In its draft report, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission said the military should gradually eliminate the ban in order to create a "level playing field for all qualified service members."

The commission, comprised of senior military officers, businessmen and academics, must now release a final report. Its findings would then need to be sent to Congress and President Obama before any changes to policy would be implemented.

The draft report said the military's "combat exclusion policies" do not reflect the realities of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and create institutional barriers to women, who are prevented from getting key assignments that could lead to career advancement.

"Service policies that bar women from gaining entry to certain combat-related career fields, specialties, units, and assignments are based on standards of conventional warfare, with well-defined, linear battlefields," the report said. "However, the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been anything but conventional."

Source: CNN.com

I dont just post this because i believe it is sexist to have, as a policy, the barring of women from service in some regards, but also because this was discussed rather heatedly when we were discussing the repeal of DADT.

I believe that many of those who oppose this idea believe that it will result in some sort of quota system where we require X number of women to be in these rules, but i strongly disagree. I believe that this will allow the most qualified, whether they be man or woman, to serve in these capacities. If (for example sake) 10 men are the best qualified they should be able to go. If (again for example sake) 8 men and 2 women are best qualified they should be able to go.

[homestarunner93]

If they want to fight, let them. I don't understand the issue here with allowing them in combat roles.

[dbroncos78087]

If they want to fight, let them. I don't understand the issue here with allowing them in combat roles.

Well that is my reason for posting this, some people dont see it that way. It doesnt really make much sense to me, but the idea as i understand it, is that woman cant keep up with men so they shouldnt be in the way. Maybe someone who disagrees with me (and you) on this subject can explain the mindset, but i dont get the idea of not even letting them compete. If they cant beat the men who want the job then they wont harm a thing, now if they can then is there some sort of ego-bruise or something? Maybe that is it, because i honestly have no clue how to justify them not being given a chance to even compete.

[Yendil]

If they want to fight, let them. I don't understand the issue here with allowing them in combat roles.

Having been in combat, I can see the issues. Its the physical aspect. I did have woman with me and a couple could pull their weight with no problem. If they can meet the physical requirements and strain than I see no problem with it, only problem I see is them letting woman in that can't physically pull their own, but for the ones that can then let them in.

[natepro]

If someone wants to go get shot at, more power to them I guess.

[Labgrownmangoat]

Source: CNN.com

I dont just post this because i believe it is sexist to have, as a policy, the barring of women from service in some regards, but also because this was discussed rather heatedly when we were discussing the repeal of DADT.

I believe that many of those who oppose this idea believe that it will result in some sort of quota system where we require X number of women to be in these rules, but i strongly disagree. I believe that this will allow the most qualified, whether they be man or woman, to serve in these capacities. If (for example sake) 10 men are the best qualified they should be able to go. If (again for example sake) 8 men and 2 women are best qualified they should be able to go.

The last paragraph is a bad example of the slippery slope argument, and based on an assumption that may not prove out. Aren't most military decision based on merit? Is there a reason why you think the military would go away from the merit-based concept in this situation?

[dbroncos78087]

The last paragraph is a bad example of the slippery slope argument, and based on an assumption that may not prove out. Aren't most military decision based on merit? Is there a reason why you think the military would go away from the merit-based concept in this situation?

Maybe because of the whole focus of the article, that woman are not allowed to serve in many roles in combat. So if they are more qualified they would not be allowed to serve in those roles.

[Labgrownmangoat]

Maybe because of the whole focus of the article, that woman are not allowed to serve in many roles in combat. So if they are more qualified they would not be allowed to serve in those roles.

I misread your original statement. We're arguing on the same side here. My bad.

[PunkShizzle]

I see nothing wrong with this at all.

[Sox_13]

If they standardize the APFT and females have the same requirements as males, then I'm fine with it. However, I also think the APFT has to be overhauled. Even if you can pass the push ups, sit ups, and the run, it doesn't mean you are going to be an effective soldier with all your gear on. I think there has to be a portion with a timed ruck march or something of that effect. And like I mentioned, if women want to have a combat MOS, they need to use the same physical requirements as men.

[dbroncos78087]

If they standardize the APFT and females have the same requirements as males, then I'm fine with it. However, I also think the APFT has to be overhauled. Even if you can pass the push ups, sit ups, and the run, it doesn't mean you are going to be an effective soldier with all your gear on. I think there has to be a portion with a timed ruck march or something of that effect. And like I mentioned, if women want to have a combat MOS, they need to use the same physical requirements as men.

I completely agree, all the standards should be the exact same. I think that people like myself, i will concede there is a portion of "my side" that thinks the standards for women should be lower but that wont help anyone (not the women and not the army), who believe that women should be given the same opportunity as men.

[GGGGG-Men]

For an organization that stalks down recruits at underprivileged schools, shopping malls and parks and feels the need to advertise on TV regularly.....I don't see how they get to be picky-choosy.

With the B.S. they cause around the world, they should be happy anyone wants to serve.

[Jenceman]

There are girls at my detachment that can seriously **** some **** up. I see no reason as to not let them fight if they meet the physical requirements.

[dbroncos78087]

There are girls at my detachment that can seriously **** some **** up. I see no reason as to not let them fight if they meet the physical requirements.

Exactly i dont think anyone who wants the army to be the best it can be would suggest different standards. For the middle school Presidential fitness thing that is fine, but this is real war and the standards should be the exact same. As in my example, we should send the best 10 people that we can whether they be men/women/gay/straight.

[jrice9]

I agree though I think they should be held to the same standard as the men required for combat as long as the tests are relevant to performance