Panetta: Women can go into combat
 

So, our illustrious Secretary of Defense has decided that women will now serve on the front line in combat units. Once again, the Obama administration put its agenda and a pay-off to uber-liberal feminist groups ahead of our national security and safety of the soldier’s serving on the front line.

There really isn’t a need to get into issues as to why women don’t belong on the front line. The multiple reasons are obvious.

What needs to be understood is that putting women on the front line will ultimately take men away from the front line, and not because they will simply be switching positions. First, it is important to understand that women serve vital roles in our modern military. These roles serve to free up more able-bodied men for combat duty. We need to also understand that women, unlike many young men, do not join the military for the excitement of the fight. In fact, in all likelihood, the possibility of seeing combat will result in fewer women joining the military. My daughter, who served six years in the Marine Corps, believes that this would likely have been the case with fifty percent of those who went through boot camp with her. The unintended consequence is that more men will be moved to critical non-front line positions vacated by women.

In short, the number of young men and women serving in the military will fall and our military readiness and national security will be compromised. Here we are with another unintended consequence of the liberal agenda. Then again, maybe it’s not so unintended after all. For a president who thinks we spend too much on the military this is a very good method to shrink the military budget without having to take an unpopular position on the issue. Stealth military policy at its best.

Re: Panetta: Women can go into combat
 

Uh yeah.... this is the Welcome Wagon forum. Kinda should post this in Poli Sci where political topics go.

Re: Panetta: Women can go into combat
 

My apologies Halo. Chalk it up to premature posting.

Re: Panetta: Women can go into combat
 

Being a combat veteran myself, I would greatly appreciate you "going into those issues", I do not see them as so obvious. Please list so I may reply. So far you are not close on your less than obvious reasons above.

Re: Panetta: Women can go into combat
 

1. MOS - (Military Occupational Specialty) is something enlistees choose at MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) based on your ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) scores you are given options to choose from.

My Choices were 13M MLRS - A combat MOS or 25S Satellite Communication Systems Operator/Maintainer - a non combat MOS. I am not bilingual so I didn't qualify for 35F Military Intelligence Analyzer even though my score was high enough. I chose 13M.

So you and your daughters theory that women will not enlist because they are "allowed" combat roles is wrong. They do not have to choose a combat role.

Females are NOT presently in support roles to "free up" able bodied men. They are in those roles because that is what they chose, and the only available roles for them. In regards to support roles/noncombat roles there are both males and females in each and every one. Doctors, Nurses, Clerks, Cooks, Mechanics... you name it, there are NO gender specific roles to free up a pair of testicles.


2. Ability - Enlistees must pass physical requirements to get past MEPS. They must pass higher requirements to get from their initial holding unit to get to their Basic training Unit. They must pass greater again physical requirement tests to get from Basic training to AIT (Advanced Individual Training) such as achieve a minimum PT (physical fitness test) score, and complete in my case a 14 mile road march with a 50lb ruck sack, full combat dress, and weapon. In order to leave AIT and make it to their Unit they have to pass another PT test. Once at their Unit they have to pass a PT test every 6 months in order to stay in the military.

So, if she passes all of that she is as able bodied as every male in her unit.

3. Sniper Traps - Rumor has it that a sniper will wound a female to draw males to aid her so he can shoot them.

BS, any and every downed soldier is a sniper trap regardless of gender. We leave no Soldier behind.

Head Count will not drop for our Military.


So from a combat veterans point of view. If she can make it through MEPS, HU, BT, AIT... Hump a 50lb ruck for 10 miles, tote an M60 with spare barrel, and ammo I am comfortable with her at my Six. More so than a guy that puts gender first as his deciding factor for a battle buddy. He has issues I am not comfortable with.

Trigger break on an M4/M16 is between 1-12 pounds... She will be fine.

Re: Panetta: Women can go into combat
 

This. And this should apply for anything else. So long as the standards are fair and reasonable women should have the same opportunities (and as a result endure the same risks) as men. Period.

And dude, you brought up some old memories with all that ASVAB, AIT, MOS stuff. Jeesh louise... LOL

There are some words and phrases that have a whole different meaning for Vets.

"MOPP gear" has nothing to do with a bucket.

"The bicycle" is not something you do up right.

"Fire watch" is not romantic

"Front lean and rest" is not relaxing at all

"Birth control" is worn on a different head

"Magazine" is not something that can be read

"Grass drill" is not something you do with a Black & Decker

4 "quarters" does not make a dollar, and the "Quarter Master" is not a champion of party games

...... I could do this all day :)

Re: Panetta: Women can go into combat
 

Re: Panetta: Women can go into combat
 

The disinformation in that article really chaps my arse.

The Marine: Really? You think there are going to line up all genders together? Come on... get a second hose on the other side of the wall, shower in groups... Jesus man.. I know you are a marine but think out side of your kevlar.

No offense Marines, but it seems they keep sticking the microphone in front of only Marines, and crap like this keeps getting said.

This: - same logic as to why gays shouldn't be in the military
“The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms,” he concluded.

Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, a Marine combat veteran who served two tours in Iraq and a third in Afghanistan, said that the question was whether the change would “actually make our military better at operating in combat and killing the enemy.”
“What needs to be explained is how this decision, when all is said and done, increases combat effectiveness rather than being a move done for political purposes,” Hunter said in a statement.

So Mike, we shouldn't allow "colored folk" in either?

Anne Coughlin, is the only one that is being realistic in this article.

Some people are portraying this as if it is a draft, and females will have no choice.

Re: Panetta: Women can go into combat
 

As a combat vet myself; I have served with women in frontline situations.

They performed flawlessly.

My only concern with this new law is lowering physical requirements, in reguards to Special Forces, SEALS, Force Recon and Rangers.

I dont want them to have requirements for males and females. There is and should remain 1 standard. If they keep it that way I have no issue with it.

Don't count females out as strong combat leaders. Or combat FIGHTERS.

I used to think females had no business in combat too. Then I went to combat.