Hooah G.I. Jane! The Military Now Welcomes You to Fill Combat Roles

(Editor’s note: This article was a submission from freelance writer Mike Doran.)

The U.S. Military is going to allow women to fill all combat positions, CNN reports.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced this week that all branches of the military would now open some 200,000 combat positions to women, including elite fighting forces like the Navy SEALS. This decision comes after the recent graduation of two females from the U.S. Army’s Ranger School earlier this year. The women could not apply to the 75th Ranger Regiment until now.

“This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They’ll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat,” Carter said at a news conference Thursday.

“There will be no exceptions,” Carter added.

However, not all leadership at the Pentagon agrees with the decision. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been a strong proponent of limiting the combat roles of women.

Dunford was pointedly not at the press conference, stating he was “not comfortable” sharing a stage with Carter to just be a “potted plant,” according to a senior Obama official.

The Marine general instead released a statement neither praising the decision nor condemning it, saying, “In the wake of the secretary’s decision, my responsibility is to ensure his decision is properly implemented.”

“Moving forward,” Dunford continued, “my focus is to lead the full integration of women in a manner that maintains our joint warfighting capability, ensures the health and welfare of our people, and optimizes how we leverage talent across the Joint Force.”

Dunford is well justified in his position, as a yearlong Marine study found that all-male squads performed better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated, according to NPR.

Males were faster, there was a “notable difference” between the genders on accuracy with weapon systems, and females were hurt more often than their male counterparts. But that won’t deter ‘progress.’

In a statement after the press conference, President Obama likened the decision to the desegregation of the military and the more recent repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy allowing inclusion of openly gay and lesbian service members, saying these decisions “made our military stronger,” reports NPR.

“As Commander in Chief, I know that this change, like others before it, will again make our military even stronger,” said the president. “Our armed forces will draw on an even wider pool of talent. Women who can meet the high standards required will have new opportunities to serve.

“I know that, under the leadership of Secretary Carter and Chairman Dunford, our men and women in uniform will implement this transition — as they have others — in a responsible manner that maintains military readiness and the unparalleled professionalism and strength of our armed forces,” Obama continued. “Together, we’re going to make sure our military remains the finest fighting force in the history of the world, worthy of all our patriots who serve — men and women.”

Defense Secretary Carter stresses that women’s role in combat will be contingent on their ability to meet the qualifications, and those deemed fit may be assigned combat roles regardless of their desire to fill them.

The process of integrating women into combat roles must begin in the next 30 days, he says.

Do you agree with President Obama that this is just the next logical step to equality, or does putting women in combat positions only weaken our military?

{ 33 comments… add one }
  • Vic December 15, 2015, 6:49 pm

    There are many moronic ideas and policies put into effect.. It is important to remember they can can be changed as well..

    So elections matter..

    By participating actively in politics.. contributing a little money and time.. This sort of nonsense can and likely will be corrected..

    Relax… use your noodle.. get involved and by lawful political and social means.. set things back on the course fr reason and rational decision making by those elected and appointed to represent the people.

    Vic

  • Charlie Piazza December 13, 2015, 9:02 am

    THERE’S NO END TO THE EQUALITY NONSENSE THAT GOES ON IN THIS COUNTRY. I THINK ITS TIME US NORMAL FOLK NEEDS TO GRAB THESE ASS HOLES BY THE HAIR AND SLAP THEM SILLY.

  • simon December 13, 2015, 2:46 am

    Many forces have used women in combat, The Red Army and Vietcong/NVA come to mind. After the wars the women were rotated out. Now when I was in Infantry school back in the day (Ft Polk) we had three intel analysts dropouts/nogos who had failed intel school and were recycled to Infantry school. Now when these amazons fail their Be All You Can Be school will they also be sent to Advance Basic Training (Infantry)? As far as fitness goes I don’t know how the other services do it, but when you have a draft (Real War) strength and endurance are not show stoppers for the Army. “Can’t get that pushup, next station, can’t make that run, next station….Here’s your gear, you will be issued ammo when you arrive in country, “Oh and thanks for your service…” In a real war, if women are drafted and treated same as men, then a lot of women are going to be washing up on some Infantry Training Center to get their chance to earn the blue rope, if they want too or not. Can’t pass APFT-tough, Can’t hump the weapon-tough…..
    The military will have to tough it out, but since the SpanAM war the military has been walking away from it’s original purpose Defending the US, the military is now in a position in which it doesn’t matter if the US wins or loses-Re Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and what ever comes next (you can tell the next loss is coming when planning starts with…”The minimum amount of troops we need are…” The problem with good women troops and leaders is they tend to be the exception not the rule. Final note having ended my career in a tour with a coed unit in Iraq (I guess the gays liked the accommodations since same sex could be in the same hut) I asked a Captain a simple question “If men and women have been separated in the service for no other reason then sexual tension, and now we will have open homosexuals in the service/showers what is the justification for having breeder males and females in separate barracks/showers?”

  • michael December 12, 2015, 6:12 pm

    firstly, there has never been a GI in the Navy, Main reason for the SEAL’s not providing any technical assistance for the movie; G. I. Jane, too bad you didn’t do your homework. Aside from that i don’t believe you’ll ever see a woman make the SEAL’s Elite Cut. I personally don’t care what role women play in the military. just don’t lower the standards so as to allow them to pass the tests and then put the men in harms way.

  • Nate December 12, 2015, 4:47 pm

    As a father, I’m in shock at the thought of getting into another messy war where voluntary enrolment goes down to the point that we reinstitute a draft and my little girl is drafted and deamed fit to go to the front lines. I wonder if Obama would send his girls? I’m sick of the privileged career politicians telling us how to live our lives, when they won’t even participate in the circus they’ve constructed. They get to opt out of Social Security, Obamacare. Why do taxpayers fund a privileged class?

  • Gregg December 11, 2015, 9:27 pm

    So what is the President gonna say when a captured woman soldier is raped…or worse by ISIS on live video and broadcast around the world? How bout two or five or ten of them all together? You don’t think the PR wing of ISIS is just giddy at the opportunities our brilliant thinkers have come up with? God protect us from ourselves.

  • Steve December 11, 2015, 5:53 pm

    Its silly and dangerous ! and not practical or reasonable but what the heck! what do they the politicians care! they dont have to go to battle with a female ! if you ask a female to be honest… they would rather have a male Marine or soldier backing them up on the front line instead of a female so why should our men want and get any different! if you get injured out there a little hundred and 30 pound girl is not going to be able to pick you up and get you to safety! but like i said what the heck!!! good job President! you have done it again!

  • Bill Graves December 11, 2015, 12:30 pm

    It should also be noted that the various service branches conducted surveys of women already serving, as to whether they would want to serve in a combat role. The overwhelming majority (over 90%) does NOT wish to serve in a direct combat role. However, the social engineers, most of whom have never seen combat, let alone served in uniform, have deemed it mandatory that women serve in combat roles, regardless of the consequences. Even if a woman does not want a billet in a combat MOS, if she is deemed fit enough to do the job, she will be forced into doing it. So much for the “All Volunteer Force”.

  • USMCVeteran December 11, 2015, 12:16 pm

    So will it now be mandatory for women to register for the draft? For those that worship at the altar of political correctness they can’t be cherry picking. I’m so glad that I served when I did because I don’t think that I could stomach being in the military at this point in history. USMC, 1971-1980.

  • L Cavendish December 11, 2015, 11:21 am

    And I hear they are FINALLY talking about having females register for selective service when they turn 18…just like the males.
    About time. Equal means equal…everywhere…not just where you want it to be.
    Does not mean women would have to go to the front lines…plenty of support roles all over the world…
    Hasn’t been a real draft since the 70s…so not a real worry…

  • Walt S. December 11, 2015, 11:21 am

    Wonder why the announcement did not include the requirement for all women to now register for the draft?
    Fair is fair. The first compulsory assignment to a combat arms slot is going to be interesting (but will probably never happen). Relief from compulsory “equality” is just a failed (watered-down) PT test away for women.

  • Tripwire December 11, 2015, 11:02 am

    As a former Marine I see it this way.
    A woman can likely fly a fighter or bomber or a chopper as well as any man so I’m ok with that, driving a tank also, slogging the jungles or mountains as a grunt? no, not now or ever, people dodge the point but unless a woman is a complete and open lesbian sex is going to happen sooner or later causing resentment in the unit, imagine an OP/LP in the middle of the night with a coed team, sooner or later there will be an issue, key words ” There will be” it’s nature, hormones get in control and nothing is going to stop it, I seem to remember something about a Navy ship that tried having women aboard and by the time the cruise was over most were pregnant so they called the ship “The Love Boat”, true? I don’t really know but I’d buy the story.
    Imagine the enemy capturing a woman, what’s that going to do to the men from her unit?
    Women in some combat roles I can see such as pilots or many other jobs but not at the point of the spear.
    I’m proud of Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford for his comments but rest assured he will be gone soon enough, another fine officer shot down by this president and PC.

    • L Cavendish December 11, 2015, 11:25 am

      Trip: and the sex happens these days…only guy on guy…and you know it does…
      how does THAT affect the unit?
      But I agree in general..women could fill many roles, though…especially if there was a draft situation…many support roles…

  • jake December 11, 2015, 10:42 am

    This idea is a bad one. Women do not belong in combat. Bad things happen to civilian women that are caught in a combat zone by the enemy. Do you think that the enemy would have some higher regard for a woman soldier? And what better way to demoralize our troops by torturing a woman soldier on the battlefield! War is hell enough for men, let alone women! It will weaken our military.
    And are women that are 18yrs old ready to be drafted? I think that we need to rethink this idea.
    Noncombat roles are fine if they want to serve in the military.

  • Winston December 11, 2015, 10:06 am

    As long the Pentagon continues to invade small Third World countries that are too financially destitute to have a modern army and pose no threat to the US Empire, they will be fine. Of course the feds use NATO as proxies and cover for the most recent half dozen misadventures that produce casualties.

  • george December 11, 2015, 9:08 am

    If you read the letter it says gender neutral standards. Translation to that is reduced standards so that less capable can pass. Its obvious to most that woman are different from men. Not better or worse just different and they should both be utilized in a manner that is not determental to readiness.

  • Concerned American December 11, 2015, 9:06 am

    I will be the first to say, I believe in gender, race, and religious equality……but not when it comes to war! You have to be kidding me with this. Women are not as physically strong as men, this is just a simple fact. Yes there are rare exceptions to this, but they are rare, POWs can be treated in some very crude and horrendous ways, those terrible ways will be worse for women that are taken prisoner in times of war. Let’s do this first……incorporate women and men together in professional sports and see how well they fare. If the women don’t end up getting their butts handed to them, then I will have been proven wrong. As a final note, I want to be clear that I do believe that women are as if not more intelligent than men in most cases. Do what you will with this comment, I don’t care, but I will never let my wife or my daughters go to war, it is my job as a man, husband, and father to make sure terrible things do not happen to them, and that is what I will do. It really is sad to see Washington succumbing to pressures from outsides sources in this matter. I guess in the end the choice should be left to women, but it should also be made very clear to these women that would put themselves in this situation, what could (and will)happen to them if they are captured in battle…..

  • Ron December 11, 2015, 8:53 am

    IF women can qualify for a combat role, any role, using the SAME standards as used for men in the past, and they can prove they are capable of doing the job, maybe…. Just like Jim said above, it may start out as all being “equal”, but it won’t take long for the standards to be lowered and the entire force will be less qualified to do the job! It is not quite the same, but I was a Titan II and later a Minuteman Missile Combat Crew Commander when the crews were all men. Now, they’ve integrated the force with women. That is a job that women should be able to do as well as men, but I definitely would not want a woman on my crew. An all woman crew? No problem. Integrate the crew and you have a problem. You are alone in a Launch Control Center, a man and a woman, for 24 hours at a time. Even if sex doesn’t happen, there is always the rumors. Not good. The same goes for traditional combat roles–don’t mix the sexes. And if a man gets “involved” with a woman in his unit–if something happens to her (or even him) in combat, he (she) is going to go to her (his) rescue when that would’t happen in an all male unit. And I could ramble on and on. Women in combat? NOT a good idea!

  • David W. Stephenson December 11, 2015, 8:04 am

    I believe that women do have a role in the Military but not in combat, I am the PROUD grandfather of an Army grandaughter. I do think that she will do a fine job in the the Military,but there is no way in HELL that my granddaughter would or should be in combat. Just because a woman can get a good score on the range with weapons and physical combat does not prepare them(or me)if GOD forbid that they are captured or killed(killed would be better that captured)by the people who want to wipe America off the face of the map,and all of the gun grabbing liberals who want to take away the average persons ability to defend themselves, Hell the military can’t even protect themselves at home. I my self am a retired LEO and have been helped by concealed carry people while on the job. These people who are trying to kill us have NO respect for women and I do fear that if we do have to go back that she might have to go,and she is willing to serve her country. But it would kill me to she that she had been captured by these heartless bastards. All this boils down to dumming down the military under the current regime called the Obama administation. when the military is protecting our rights overseas,it our duty to protect the homeland. I had to take an Oath when I was sworn in as a Police Officer and that Oath never expires. I carry everyday! And will Honor my Oath and fight tyanny until my last breath!

  • Steve F December 11, 2015, 5:39 am

    Now that the U.S. government has equalized men and women in combat, it’s next step will be to equalize them in the draft.

  • Jim December 11, 2015, 4:19 am

    [quote]… as long as they qualify and meet the standards,…[end quote] Not being able to “meet the standards” set for males will be declared discriminatory and the standards lowered. That’s what they did back in the 70s when I was in the army and they first started some of this liberalizing of the service.
    So to empower a few women who want to play soldier, the entire force will be weakened and it’s efficiency drastically reduced. Sure someone will point out that some women are stronger than men. True enough. But those men who couldn’t measure up were washed out leaving only those who could make the grade. You think they’ll let a woman be washed out if one should not be able to keep up say, a forced march with heavy packs? Heck no! There you are, one of a handful beating feet through some distant enemy night with the bad guys hot on your trail, which you are trying to leave as little sign of your passing as possible. You can only go as fast and far as your weakest member. You can’t leave anybody behind, so what are you going to do? Carry their great and weapons? that slows you down. Carry them? really slows you down. Stop and take a break. Not a good option there either.
    What use political correctness then.

  • Will Drider December 8, 2015, 1:20 am

    Its all PC wonderful until graphic images of POW, WIA and KIA hit the internet. 

    Dear Mr and Mrs. Smith,

    I send my heart felt condolences on the passing of your daugher Marina while assigned to Combat Operation within my Command. Families are entitled to information regarding there loss of a loved one. I will be brief but clear and avoid anything that my cause further discomfort.

    Marina was a FireTeam Rifleman on patrol with her assigned Squad while two other Squads were nearby. While dispersed when crossing a open area, Marina’s Squad came under light small arms fire. As the Squad returned fire and moved, Marina (who was in towards the center of the formation) did not keep up with the Squad. She was laying in the open firing galantly at to opposing forces. She did not respond to call and signals to move. Thinking Marina was wounded, two Marines ran to render aid and move her. As soon as the two arrived, they all got up were moving on their own when a rocket propelled grenade hit in their close proximity. Shortly thereafter, the other Squads routed the enemy combatants as Her Squad split provided protection and the rest moving to provide Aid. None of the three survived the explosion. 
    It is with deep regret for the politically correct decissions that force people into circumstances that ended up costing the lives of two fine Marines because one substandard combat Marine could not move fast enough with a combat load and would not follow orders to move out of the kill zone. When this occures in the future, I will ensure that Aid and Rescue efforts only utilize personel that meet alternative minimum standards for females thus reducing the burden of the actual fighting force. Please write you elected officials and tell them how delighted you are with the outcome of their socially PC mandates and what you feel about the potential for Marinas’ Sister (with two kids) to be drafted in the future.

    Warm regards,
    Chesty Puller
    Gen, Rolling over in my grave!

  • Snubby December 7, 2015, 8:29 am

    With the coming wars ahead and decrease in personnel, we’ll need all the help we can get. I served with many women in the Army as an MP and most of them were just as good and effective as any other solider in the battlefield. My drill sergeant was a woman and so were both of our brigade commanders. Our CSM was in the Army for over 20 years and she was among the best soldiers I have ever worked with. This is a good move forward into becoming a fighting force for the future.

    • bryan December 11, 2015, 10:08 am

      Snubby you are an idiot. You were obviously not Infantry. There is a huge difference between MPs and the Infantry.Lets see a normal woman carry an m240 machinegun with 800rds of ammunition. The part I didn’t like from SecDef was about putting women in the roles if they feel they are qualified whether they want to or not. I really believe they are trying to destroy our military.

    • Glennon December 11, 2015, 4:06 pm

      I was a tanker in the Army for many years and I can tell you that a tank looks huge from the outside, but inside the quarters are tight. There is little room inside for anything more than what is needed to operate this weapon system in combat. Truth many tankers carry spare canteen cups to urinate in and throw it out of a hatch & get back to the mission at hand. There is nothing light weight when it comes to pulling maintenance on a tank or recovering a thrown track or bringing all of the needed ammo inside the tank. I have seen male soldiers struggle to carry & mount the fifty caliber machine gun into its’ mount. I can list many other reasons why this will not work. Being a tanker is a dirty exhausting duty. I have been in Armor units and Armored Cavalry units and it is a hard life for men, who have families they leave behind for training and for single guys who drink and get very rowdy in their off time. I have nothing against women in the military, but what happened to common sense, I guess it has been replaced by this pc crap. As others have stated if they are going to go down this road then women must register for the draft. In closing I must stress the point that the Combat Arms branches of the Army is an extremely harsh, nasty job!!!

  • Rob December 7, 2015, 7:49 am

    I was serving when the US Marine Corps did this the first time. The feminist went crazy and General Krulak gave females equal rights by implementing the male PFT standard across the board……..Ahhh, that lasted about 3 months before they ere in DC crying about harassment and abuse against females……………..This move will not help make our military better. It will bring them down and the studies and statistics prove this. This is however, what the Ayatollah of America promised however, he would change and transform the US and he is transforming this country into the worst positions period. Weaken the US Military, target our gun rights………..Hmmm, same thing Hitler did and while soe of you may mock that idea, history repeats itself because the same communistic, smug bigoted left wingers constantly repeat everything. No matter what country they are in it’s all the same.

  • Bill December 6, 2015, 7:55 am

    As a Army retiree, I was active duty when the WACS, Women Army Corp was intergrated into the regular army. It was stated officially that there would be no changes to make it easier for women to meet the current standards.

    So what happened? They changed the standards. Things that had been a one man (I mean person), are now a two person job. This is political correctness gone crazy.

    • Smoke Hill Farm December 12, 2015, 3:02 am

      Absolutely true, and it the military leadership had an ounce of common sense — or testicles — they’d have never allowed a second, much LOWER, standard of performance for women. There were good reasons for our physical standards, only one example of which is the need for ANYONE on board ship to be able to carry a wounded buddy to safety — even up ladders (stairs). Dropping those standards WILL cost some soldiers’ and sailors’ lives — it’s just a matter of when, not if. Just because those deaths are not really quantifiable in advance doesn’t mean they aren’t real.

      When I was in the Army Chief of Staff’s Office in the Pentagon I watched this situation slowly deteriorate, year by year. The main reason we dumped the venerable old .45 pistol in favor of a 9mm popgun had nothing to do with combat effectiveness, and everything to do with political pressure from the Hill about women not being able to handle a real pistol; they’d flinch, close their eyes and crap their OD panties when using the .45, and the Usual Suspects in Congress were NOT happy. I read every piece of paper on that issue & attended many of the meetings between Congressmen, DCSRDA, DCSPER, SecArmy reps and senior Army leaders. There was also a lot of pressure from Congressmen who hoped to get new gun factories in their districts (and probably large political contributions), and inexorably the wrong decision got made. Has that cost us troops’ lives since then? I am certain it has, given the rather sissified performance of the 9mm compared to the .45, but you cannot just point to certain deaths and blame them on that alone.

      I recall one senior DCSRDA colonel, the first time he saw the designation of the new 9mm pansy-guns, shake his head in disgust and say, “That’s your first clue that it’s a piece of shit — when the official name goes from ‘Pistol, cal .45 … ‘ to some bureaucratic crap-title like ‘Personal Weapons System, 9mm’ …. It’s a pistol, not a goddam f***ing ‘system’ ”

      Women’s inability to handle large-caliber weapons was not the only issue we faced as WACs supposedly morphed into female soldiers. At Walter Reed and other posts they ran into massive problems when using female MPs as gate guards and ‘beer hall patrol.’ They simply could not physically or mentally deal effectively with rowdy, often drunk, soldiers who simply ignored them or laughed at them. Walter Reed’s solution — they simply added a male MP whenever a female MP was on the gates, or sent into the EM clubs to sort out a few drunk, rowdy soldiers Much the same thing happened when females were allowed to become truck drivers. Virtually none of them could handle changing a tire on a big truck, so commanders had to send out a male soldier with almost every trip with a female driver. For unit commanders this was a horror, since we were already short of people, training money & everything else, thanks to having Carter in the White House. This was brought up at EVERY Commanders Conference and in personal troop visits, though it turned out to be a non-fixable problem because of Congressional (and White House) pressure. I’d bet real money this has gotten worse since then, not better. As always, the troops pay the price.

      I would have less problem with this “integration” if the physical standards were left the same, since eventually there would be a few — a VERY few — women that could make the grade. The ugly truth is that military women are now just another whining minority group demanding special dispensation so that they can follow a phony “career path” that will lead them to higher rank. Even more unfortunately, our military leadership has long been selected for their malleability, willing to compromise their honor and honesty on the altar of political correctness. When Congress long ago got “veto power” over all senior military positions, they began shopping among those candidates to make sure those that rose to the top were all willing to bargain, rather than resign — loudly and publicly — when they had a choice between the safety of their troops and furthering the radical left-wing politics so rampant in Congress. Not every general is a whore and a traitor to his troops … but it’s more the rule than the exception.

      As we see from the military’s own testing, adding women into combat units makes the units’ performance drop like a rock in all important elements — but when you have an entire administration with nothing but disdain for the military and hatred for any kind of tradition, this is what you get. Not to mention Obama’s choice for Secretary of the Army — a flaming homosexual whose only military experience was attending Village People concerts (before every one of them died of AIDS). Don’t bend over to pick up that soap, boys ….

      • William Satmary December 13, 2015, 9:24 pm

        Smoke Hill Farm,
        Very well put. I very much enjoyed reading your comments. Just to add something else: Why on God’s green earth would a female WANT to be a grunt? A grunt’s day-to-day life is very far from glamorous or exciting. Surely, there are more rewarding specialties, more challenging and better suited for women.
        Semper Fi,
        Will

  • James M. December 5, 2015, 6:49 pm

    And another thing. Psychological side. From my raising I was taught to lookout for and protect the females around me. It’s been ingrained. Hard enough seeing a brother shot up. Would a female being hurt or killed affect me differently? I feel that it would. I think that the way most of us were taught regarding the fairer sex, this integration will take time to work as well as it does otherwise. Unless they want fully female run and staffed groups. Fully functional and capable for the tasks given them.

    • Smoke Hill Farm December 12, 2015, 2:07 am

      If I recall correctly, this was one of the major reasons why the Israeli army changed its original policy of allowing women in front-line combat. Too many instances of men doing stupid things, even disobeying orders, to save women. Apparently some wounded woman screaming affected them much more than that of their male buddies, and stupidity resulted.

  • James M. December 5, 2015, 6:29 pm

    There are two things needed for this to work. First, every woman will have to be able to perform their job as good as and possibly better than their male peers. Two, woman in leadership positions will HAVE to have the respect of those following. Which is the hard part. How many brothers, fathers, and sons will think this unacceptable. Hard to have the respect of those who don’t believe in women being there. This will not be a good thing. That is where this will fail. And cause major issues, possibly lives.

    • Norm December 11, 2015, 8:32 am

      The ongoing Social Rainbow Experiment for a fighting force (the military) is the final nail in the coffin for our country.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend