It has long been obvious….

Source: avoca

Should women be allowed to have active combat roles?  Traditionally, the armed forces have been all male.  For years, even gay men couldn’t serve openly.  It has only been in the past few years, after decades of hiding, that men can be openly gay and serve, so why will they allow women to serve so soon?  If history has anything to show, it should take the government another 20 years before they let women into the military.  If allowing openly gay men to serve was such a big step, the step to allow female presence is like climbing a mountain.  Surprisingly though, the pentagon has taken the idea of women in combat out for a spin before.   In 1993, the same year president Clinton agreed to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise, they allowed woman to participate as combat pilots.  It may seem like a big step, but sure enough, the following year they denied women’s participation.  Being a pilot isn’t new either.  During World War II, women served as test pilots. Way before that, during the civil war, wives worked in the artillery and as nurses on the front lines.

Source: PoliticalLoudMouth, WordPress

Over the years, in just Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 800 women have been wounded and over 150 have died proforming their military duty. So doesn’t that imply that women already serve?  No, it doesn’t.  Although woman “now make up 14 percent of our armed forces form across all branches of the services”, many women are denied formal recognition of their combat (NYtimes).  They do not formally have active combat roles but are still put in hostile situations.  How do these branches get around the rules?  They “sidestep official policy by “attaching,” rather than assigning, women to infantry and special operations units because their skills were needed” (NYTimes).  Army Capt. Kelly Hasselman, 28, commands a company of female soldiers that builds relations with rural Afghan women.  Officially, they aren’t in active combat, but everybody knows the truth; “we’re already here”, she states, “it’s just not officially in the books”.

Furthermore, women are beneficial to the military.  It’s not like they don’t want women in the military because they are inferior.  It’s because of preconcieved gender roles.  A key phrase mentioned earlier was that women’s “skills are needed”.  Reports dating back to 1951 find that women make just as many important contributions to the military as men do. Two women were even awarded the Silver Star, the nation’s third-highest medal for gallantry in combat.   (LATimes).   It is so shocking that the government can grant two women this medal and not realize the twisted irony.  They are awarding two women for something that according to them then shouldn’t have been doing.  Granted, since World War II, the United States has been trying to integrate women into the forces but it still isn’t fully condoned.  So obviously not many people are truly against women actually serving against the military, many are just against the idea of it.

Source: Gazette

Opposing viewpoints argue that most women aren’t capable of the physical demands men must endure when in combat, especially in the infantry.  They are concerned about upholding military fitness as well as scenarios where a man is injured and the women must carry him out.  The honest truth is that most can’t.  But the ones that want to join the armed forces are the ones that can. They are the ones that will work hard to meet the same standards.  Rosie Darby, a 20 year-old medic was assigned to a combat outpost as a healthcare specialist.  Her job requires her to trek through vineyards and fields to avoid mines, all the while carrying medical supplies.  The other men in her platoon say that she outperforms half them.  She isn’t concerned about physical demands. Her concern is emotional attachment.  She says the men in her platoon think of her as a little sister and would want to take care of her if she were injured, even if they should be continuing the fight. This would pose a threat to the success of the mission.  But these are minor problems compared to the overall goal.  Women who cannot handle the stamina required are weeded out or reassigned just like men are.  As for emotional attachment, it is up to women to prove that they are no different, by any means, than the men.  It is something that men will have to get used to.

Last month, the Defense Secretary announced that they would be lifting the ban on women in combat.  Although the ban will not be fully phased out until 2016, it is a time to celebrate.  Women have time and time again proven their effectiveness and worthiness to join men in combat and finally have their chance to prove to the world that this should have happened a long time ago.

Title from political cartoon

Women on the Front Lines: Saving Lives vs Political Correctness

After 84 women killed in combat and 11 years straight of war, United States Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has made the decision to lift the ban on women fighting in front-line combat.  This bold move by Panetta has raised both concern and support.  For some, this represents another step away from social barriers, and for others, an unnecessary threat to soldier’s lives.  This controversial move by Leon Panetta was a result of strategic campaigning(by certain organizations).

Women, formerly banned from the front lines by a 1994 rule, are now gaining the ability to fight in front-line combat.  Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defense decided to lift the ban and open up front lines of combat to women.  Although women have had increasing participation in the defense of our nation in the past decade, this is a historic step which will open up thousands of fighting jobs to women for the first time ever. The implementation of this process will be slow and ultimately last until 2016, giving military leaders time to figure out exactly how they plan to put the new policy into effect and clear it with the Defense Secretary.  But combat will not be a new thing for women as women’s casualties account for some “12 percent – or 300,000 – of those deployed in the war efforts in the past 11 years”(Reuters).  

The controversy surrounding this decision is heated, as real lives are at stake, but both sides present a convincing argument.  One point of view is that most women simply would not be physically able.  Many believe that lifting a 200 lb unconscious comrade and running to shelter while carrying all armor and a heavy gun is out of the picture for most women.  There is no room for political correctness when soldier’s lives are on the line.  Others counter this argument by saying that its simply a matter of qualification. Not all men are discriminated against in the army just because some of them are unfit to fight; so not all women should be discounted because most are physically unable to serve on front lines.  Another argument is that women should be allowed to fight in front lines but held to a lower standard.  Ex women from the military, who obviously support equality between men and women in the military, applauded Panetta’s decision.  In a time of liberation for women, the front lines opening up to women seems unquestionable, but the counter arguments present valid points as well.  Debates surrounding the new combat opportunities for women are heating up around the web, as both sides present valid points.

The story of how the ban-lifting came about and happened in the U.S. Government is also interesting.  As I know from Government and Economy class, an active citizen has multiple routes to voice their opinion to the government if they feel inclined to do so.  These ‘pathways’ are a special aspect of our democracy which can be utilized by anyone who wants to make a difference, or “routes of change in our system of government”(studyblue.com).  In this case it wasn’t a citizen, but an organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, which reached out.  They “filed a suit in November seeking to force the Pentagon to end the ban on women in combat” and later applauded the Panetta’s announcement(Reuters).  In doing so, they demonstrated the usefulness of the ‘Court Pathway’.

In the balancing act between saving human lives and dealing with political correctness, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, made a bold decision.  Granting women the right to fight in front-line combat raises concern for many and applause from others.  Despite all the controversy, the American Civil Liberties Union’s success story in using the ‘Court Pathway’ to it’s full potential was a perfect illustration of the impact citizens can make on government decisions.

Women in Combat: What gives them the right?

ibtimes.com

The recent decision to initiate the end of restrictions and limitations of female duties in the military has sparked controversy and conversation over the difference between men and women and what makes women have the same eligibility to perform the same duties men can. The Pentagon recently announced that they have lifted, “a 1994 Defense Department ruling that restricted service opportunities for women in the military, particularly “physically demanding tasks that would exclude the vast majority of women.” (Waltonian) The idea that women are less capable of performing the same tasks as men comes from this speculation that females are less physically and mentally capable then men. Researchers have indicated that women are reportedly more susceptible to pain than men, which may be the cause of such controversy over what women are capable of doing physically. Men’s Fitness says, “The differences found between men and women may result from a variety of causes, such as hormones, psychological factors, genetics, or even the simple fact that men feel more cultural pressure to report less pain.” (Men’s Fitness). Studies like these may prove a point that women are different than men but I believe it does not give the government a right to ban all women from performing military duties. If a woman enlists into the military for a specific duty, and they perform up the same standard as men do, then shouldn’t that woman be eligible for the job? I believe it should be up to the person, female or male, to decide whether they are willing and capable to execute certain military obligations. Isn’t this one of the values this country was founded on? The freedom to choose your path and future applies to all citizens of the United States. My studies of the Constitution in my government class have taught me that the dilemma with women in the military should not be debated over.

 Based on the freedom this country provides and emphasizes, women should, without a doubt, be able to enlist and apply for any military function. Although the Constitution does give Congress the right to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation

of the land and naval Forces” (Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution) the decision to ban women from performing certain combat duties does not support the ideals this country embraces. To me this discrimination against women is not different then discrimination against a certain religion or race. This issue has given me a better understanding of the national thought on

what policies regarding different sexes should be. I believe that all people should have the chance to pursue their desires and not be restricted in any way. This event has given me a more vivid perspective on what we have studied in class. The answer to the question of whether women should be allowed to enlist for certain jobs in the military is given better thought and comprehension by me after my studies in government class of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Congress’ decision in 1994 to ban all women from certain military duties is not supported by anything other than studies indicating the differences between men and women. Ellen Lainez, the DOD Spokeswoman says that the reason for these restrictions is that “there are practical barriers”. (News.Discovery)

Women Vs. Men

These ‘practical barriers’ defy the rights given to men (and women) by God! This so-called “glass ceiling” preventing women to excel in military duties is without a doubt labeling our country hypocritical in a sense that we hinder the potential of women to excel and make great accomplishments for themselves and their country. My opinion is that lifting this ban is the ethical and right thing to do based on the freedom to pursue certain paths that our country emphasizes and endorses.

Should Women be Allowed in Combat Roles in the Military?

Women in combat may not be as big of a deal as some people think.

On Wednesday, January 24th, Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, lifted the ban that said that women could not serve in certain combat positions in the military. This decision will open up thousands of more jobs for women. In 1994, the Pentagon made a rule that said that women cannot serve in artillery, armor, or infantry positions. This was over turned on Wednesday.

I am personally very much in favor of women having the same opportunities in life as men. I think it’s wonderful that women are now able to serve in combat positions and it’s a great step in the direction of gender equality. However, it is concerning that women might not be held to the same standards to qualify for certain military positions.

If the standards are different in qualifications like how fast the person can run, whichever gender does not have to run as fast may potentially be putting themselves in real danger when in serious situations. For instance, if a team made up of males and females planted a bomb in a building and then needed to run away, the gender that ran at a slower pace could have a serious problem if they don’t keep up.

Also, there is always the concern that women, if captured, will be tortured and raped. This may make them more vulnerable to divulge secret information. If the woman is captured in a group, the men might feel the need to give away information in order to protect the woman from harm. There are more dangers for women if they are placed in combat roles. However, the people signing up for these combat roles should be made aware of these possible risks beforehand. If it doesn’t deter them, then they should be allowed to serve their country.

There is also the issue of the draft and whether or not women should be required to sign up for it. I believe that it is only fair that if women get the same opportunity to serve, they are required to take the same responsibility to serve. People always say that with privileges comes responsibility. If women get the privilege of serving, they should also have the responsibility to serve should the time come when we need to use the draft again.

This issue relates back to the idea that “all men are created equal,” which is layed out in the Constitution. The idea has changed over the years and it now interpreted as all people are created equal which means that they should all have the same opportunities. However, it also implies that all people should be held to the same standards. If all people are created equal, gender should be of no consequence when considering the standards someone should be held to.

While I believe that Panetta is right to allow women into combat roles, he needs to be very careful in how he goes about this. He should carefully consider the issue from all possible angles before making a final decisions.

Women in Combat

Since the dawn of time, men have been soldiers.  However, in the modern world, these beliefs are turning into a thing of the past, and women are gaining equality in every aspect society. There are still those who believe that women should not be allowed into combat, but for the most part, those ideas are ancient. Early this year, the Pentagon has begun discussing the idea of the lifting the Combat Exclusion Policy that restricts women from combat duties. If this policy is lifted, the military must reassess many of its practices. In order to make this an effective change, the policy must first be withdrawn, then it must be accepted as a cultural norm. The courts pathway is a simple process compared to the process of changing the cultural norm, and the hearts and minds of the American people. The issue of whether or not women should be allowed in combat is a prime example of how to use the Courts and the Cultural pathways, to make a difference in society.

In 1994, the Pentagon ruled that women should not be allowed to be involved in armor, infantry, artillery, or any other combat role.  The Combat Exclusion Policy is now a topic of discussion with emphasis on abolishing it. Almost twenty years later, the Pentagon is reassessing the topic, and looking pass it through the courts quickly. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has spent much of his time studying this topic, to make sure that it is done, correctly and efficiently. Once the decision is made, he must give a 30-day letter of intent to Congress, but nothing they can do can stop it from going into effect, unless they pass a law against it.  Getting it through the Courts is a very important part, of the process. The more talk about the topic, the more people will stand behind what they believe in.  The majority of those in power believe in gender equality in the military. General Dempsey wishes, “To implement these initiatives successfully and without sacrificing our war-fighting capability or the trust of the American people” (The New York Times). As with every controversial issue, there are those who are strongly against it. Organizations, such as the Family Research Consul argue that, “living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions” (The New York Times). There are many people who support the idea of women in combat, and many who object it, but when it comes down to it, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has made his decision and pushed it through to Congress.

In order to make this change, the military must be accepting and open-minded.  They will have to change traditions and mindsets in order for out military to run effectively. Allowing women in combat is not just a change in policy, but a complete alteration in the minds of the American people. As of now, it is almost impossible for women to advance in her career in the military.  She is restricted in so many aspects, and seen as inferior to her male counterparts.  This change in policy will allow women to work to achieve the same rights and positions men have in the armed forces. As of 2013, there have only been two women four-star generals. The culture in the United States military makes it seem as if women cannot, and never will be put equal to men.  In basic training, men and women are tested under completely different standards, and almost completely separated during exercises. The culture in America, is adapting slowly to accommodate the new modern and liberal way of thinking. The outside world is “pressuring the Pentagon to catch up with the reality on the battlefield” (The New York Times)  There are already thousands of women who have been deployed in Afghanistan, with more then 800 wounded and 130 killed.  These women are returning home, but they never truly receive the credit they deserve, because women are not recognized in combat roles.  The lifting of the Combat Exclusion Policy, will open doors for women in the military, and change the cultural norm of women’s roles in society.

The Combat Exclusion Policy has been a part of United States military for almost 20 years, since the Pentagon passed it in 1994. The idea that only men should be involved in combat has been the cultural norm for thousands of years. Early in 2013, the Pentagon decided to eliminate the policy, giving women equal opportunity on the battlefield.  The Combat Exclusion Policy is a huge step towards gender equality every aspect of American society, and once it is through the courts, it will be on its way to making a true and lasting impact.