I have been hit with an avalanche of emails asking for my thoughts on this. I am going to make this very short- I think it’s fantastic and about time.
But what about physical requirements that will have to be relaxed for women? Simple, for roles where general fitness is more important than hitting specific metrics that were tailored to the male anatomy, I say the military is smart enough to figure out a policy that does not degrade our country’s ability to wage war effectively. But what about the special forces, such as US Navy SEALs, where even some of the most physically fit men cannot make the grade? I say do not relax the standards one bit. Sure, this will disqualify massive amounts of fit women who want to serve in such a capacity but not all. Those who can make it through BUDS training and Hell Week without any special treatment will prove to all of us just how stupid the ban on women in combat roles has been. On a personal level I have seen women act more bravely and endure more pain and inconvenience without complaint than the vast majority of men I have known throughout my life and I can only imagine what they are capable of when they actually have something to prove. Watch-out Taliban, a platoon of female Marines may be your worst nightmare yet, both physically and philosophically.
In the end America and its long history of discrimination has never been proven valid, we always find out after a social breakthrough has been made just how damaging exclusion oriented policies based on color, creed, and gender have actually been. I believe that any American, of any color, economic class or gender should have opportunity to prove themselves worthy of serving their nation in a combat role. The reality is that the enemy could care less what color your skin is, what you do in your bedroom, or what you have between your legs and neither should we.
Will integration be easy? No. Will there be major obstacles along the way? Yes. None-the-less I look forward to seeing America’s female warriors prove themselves in spades on the battlefields of tomorrow. I have 100% confidence in your abilities and professionalism.
I would point out to your comment about women in Special Forces-that here in the UK the SRR is reputed to accept female applicants.
Find it funny reading comments on newssites on this subject “women in military”. Then all people discuse this without asking themself what that sentence even mean. What im saying is, alot of people thinks its bad and only referring to strenght and stamina and so on. But totally forgets that there´s alot of other positions in the military. Im pretty sure that a woman can read a radar as good as a guy for example.
I think its down to what the job is but maybe most of all what type of personality the person has. Im pretty sure there are women out there with right personality even for hard missions too. Though im sure that its harder to find such person along women for obvious reasons. Last thing you need is some drama emo person that cant make a hard decision.
“But totally forgets that there´s alot of other positions in the military. Im pretty sure that a woman can read a radar as good as a guy for example.”
The topic of the day isn’t women reading radar scopes, working in intelligence units or being a military surgeon; this has been happening for decades. It’s women operating in front line American combat units, such as artillery or infantry. While the politicians are making noise that standards won’t be relaxed for women, when it becomes clear that women won’t make the cut physically, standards will be relaxed. Or, more accurately, there will be men’s standards and women’s standards in combat billets.
Maybe I haven’t been looking hard enough, but I’ve seen no logical argument for this move. How will this help us win battles? Do we not have enough military age males? I don’t think there is a shortage of men wanting to sign up for 11B or 19D, etc. Call it discrimination if you want, but I would say you’re wrong. We do not need to put our women out in front. Consider World War 1,2, Korea, or Vietnam. They were much more “intense” conflicts and not once (from what I know) did they consider putting women directly in “combat positions”. Help me understand how this will help us WIN WARS. Can we tolerate women being targeted/killed/captured by the enemy and then proudly displayed on television as trophies? How about the reports that will come out of them being raped and tortured? How then can you expect the political will to continue a fight if such a thing were to occur? (Although I do admit it may ignite a terrible rage and cause us to utterly destroy the said enemy). There is not a NEED for women to serve in frontline, gun toting, shooting the enemy, combat positions.