Will military's elite commando jobs go to women? Brass to decide
»Play Video
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon's decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat presents a daunting challenge to top military leaders who now will have to decide which, if any, jobs they believe should be open only to men.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to announce Thursday that more than 230,000 battlefront posts - many in Army and Marine infantry units and in potentially elite commando jobs - are now open to women. It will be up to the military service chiefs to recommend and defend whether women should be excluded from any of those more demanding and deadly positions, such as Navy SEALs or the Army's Delta Force.
The historic change, which was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.
The change won't take place overnight: Service chiefs will have to develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.
Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes Wednesday on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.
There long has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.
But as news of Panetta's expected order got out, many members of Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced their support.
"It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," Levin said.
Objections were few. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, called the move "another social experiment" that will place unnecessary burdens on military commanders.
"While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations," said Boykin, a retired Army lieutenant general. He noted that small units often are in sustained combat for extended periods of time under primal living conditions with no privacy.
Panetta's move comes in his final weeks as Pentagon chief and just days after President Barack Obama's inaugural speech in which he spoke passionately about equal rights for all. The new order expands the department's action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army.
In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.
Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines, and they often included top command and support staff.
The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached - but not formally assigned - to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.
Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs, including some infantry and commando positions.
Two lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, adding pressure on officials to overturn the policy. And the military services have been studying the issue and surveying their forces to determine how it may affect performance and morale.
The Joint Chiefs have been meeting regularly on the matter and they unanimously agreed to send the recommendation to Panetta earlier this month.
A senior military official familiar with the discussions said the chiefs laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process. Those were to maintain America's effective fighting force, preserve military readiness and develop a process that would give all service members the best chance to succeed.
Women comprise about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars. Of the more than 6,600 U.S. service members who have been killed, 152 have been women.
The senior military official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to announce Thursday that more than 230,000 battlefront posts - many in Army and Marine infantry units and in potentially elite commando jobs - are now open to women. It will be up to the military service chiefs to recommend and defend whether women should be excluded from any of those more demanding and deadly positions, such as Navy SEALs or the Army's Delta Force.
The historic change, which was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.
The change won't take place overnight: Service chiefs will have to develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.
Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes Wednesday on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.
There long has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.
But as news of Panetta's expected order got out, many members of Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced their support.
"It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," Levin said.
Objections were few. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, called the move "another social experiment" that will place unnecessary burdens on military commanders.
"While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations," said Boykin, a retired Army lieutenant general. He noted that small units often are in sustained combat for extended periods of time under primal living conditions with no privacy.
Panetta's move comes in his final weeks as Pentagon chief and just days after President Barack Obama's inaugural speech in which he spoke passionately about equal rights for all. The new order expands the department's action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army.
In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.
Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines, and they often included top command and support staff.
The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached - but not formally assigned - to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.
Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs, including some infantry and commando positions.
Two lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, adding pressure on officials to overturn the policy. And the military services have been studying the issue and surveying their forces to determine how it may affect performance and morale.
The Joint Chiefs have been meeting regularly on the matter and they unanimously agreed to send the recommendation to Panetta earlier this month.
A senior military official familiar with the discussions said the chiefs laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process. Those were to maintain America's effective fighting force, preserve military readiness and develop a process that would give all service members the best chance to succeed.
Women comprise about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars. Of the more than 6,600 U.S. service members who have been killed, 152 have been women.
The senior military official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.
A disastrous idea.Â
1) great - when the draft is re-instated it must be applied EQUALLY. 2) ranger school, airborne school etc. . .MUST have the SAME physical requirements for women as men. if the requirement for instance (and i do not know the specifics) is for a 6 min mile the standard must be the same for both sexes/ ditto push ups etc. . . 3) equality and equal pay for equal work is just that - EQUAL.   4) as for privacy in extreme situations - let it go.   if a woman is worried about privacy in a tense combat mission she has no business being there in the first place.
I wonder if the Pentagon realizes just how immature most boys are when they hit Basic Training. Look, American men try to kill themselves with testosterone poisoning until we're about 35. Add into this the high-stress environment of an infantry company [think of it like a football team with explosives] and you get problems out the whazoo. And if people think there's a sexual misconduct issue in all the service *now* [and there is, make no mistake], just wait till you get women into combat companies.
Â
Having said all that, on principle I am pretty egalitarian. I believe that if you meet the standards, you should have a shot at whatever you're trying to do and race/creed/color/religion/facebook status be damned. If there are women that can meet the physical standards of the Infantry, Armor, and Artillery, then fine, let them join the crews /squads. But the physical standards means the standards AS THEY EXISTED LAST YEAR... cuz 100 lbs rucks and a nasty mission requirements don't care about your gender; they only care that it gets done. So ladies, get to your pull up bars and get your push ups done [and real push ups please, not the on-your-knees 'variant'].
Â
And make no mistake, no Israeli woman has yet made it into one of their Sayaret units [their General Staff Rangers /Commandos], at least the ones they offer any info about. Sayaret Mat'kal [very elite recon] gets about as much pub as SFOD-Delta and for good reason. The IDF doesn't even acknowlege the unit's existance.
Â
Last thought. I wouldn't give a plug nickel on the chances for the troops under the first few female Armor, Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry officers. What the Army and Marines will do is skew the quals to get several women into the branches ASAP so they can tell DoD 'hey, lookie, we're doing what you said'. Whether or not these women are up to the mission is going to have to wait for Real World Events to catch up. That could leave a lot of troops in the lurch. Then again, it may not.
@svensson if they skew the qualification for women "they" have no guts - - or pertinent male parts.
Yep, our nation will be protected by the Bradley Mannings, Lady Ga-Ga and "Chaz" Bono-types.
Â
Will the women get drafted if the draft comes back, probably not. remember equil work for equil pay. I was in the fire department for many many years and the women couldnt pass the physical exam so they lowered the standards. Dont tell me they are not going to lower the standards!!
They wanted it.....
Â
This is kinda like the submariner thing. Why on earth would women want the worst job in the Navy?!?!?!
They can do it !
Â
I think all combat troops should be female and or gay. take away the M-4's (AR's) let them smoke pot and make love not war. It's just that easy. They really love us over there you know they will listen. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance..
@BocaBob   what a summons to the deamons of sarcasm and cynacism. . . .
 @BocaBob Actually, Islam is about peace and tolerance.  I spent some years living in Morocco, and was able to experience the Islamic culture.  I am sorry that you believe the gangs and thugs who happen to be Muslim, represent Islam; that is just not the case.
 @BocaBob Hey derp derp lets strawman the night away!
If they can meet the same requirements as the men there is no reason not to.Â
@quidproquo I totally agree. They need to pass the same PT test as the males (not dummed down). If they can do that I think its a great move and about time.
 @Lord Farquad --- If that isn't sexist, I don't know what is.Â
@31F @JK15Â Â If a woman wants to compete with a man, she should have the wherewithall to score like a man.
@Bianca @Lord Farquad Ok, if 'dumbed down' is sexist, how about 'lower upper body strength and endurance requirements.'
Â
I have been off of Uncle Sugar's payroll for some time now, but when I was in the female PT test was a joke. They had to do fewer push ups [and got to those with a chair and/or on their knees, rather than a real push up], fewer sit ups, and had longer to run the 2 mile. I don't ever recall a woman ever having to do a timed road march. Obviously times have changed and the physical standards across the entire spectrum of military service have increased, but if there is a similar percentage skew in the standards for females now as they were then, well, that's going to be a problem.
Â
Look, Bianca, a 100 lbs ruck, vest, basic load, weapon, and nasty mission requirements don't care about your gender. Under those conditions it's a binary solution: success or failure and there is no middle ground.
Â
I have no doubt that there are women that can meet the standards of the Infantry branch as they existed last year, and by all means they should give it a go. But that means doing the male APRT [Army (or Marine) Physical Readiness Test] to the branch standards.
 @JK15 No crying, and, yes, "dummed down" is sexist.  Sexist is prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination typically against women.  "The same PT tests as men"... are you serious?  The PT test is a joke, even for men.  When I served, I scored over 300 points continually throughout my career in the Army.  Even to this day, I can run 2-miles in under 12 min, 120+ pushups, and 80+ sit-ups under 2 min.  We are all different and have different abilities.  I never considered all of the guys below me of lesser stature just because they couldn't score above 300.  I wouldn't expect anyone to score in these ranges; hence I wouldn't expect a woman to score like a man. Â
 @31F  @jlynnhood "Dummed Down" is just an expression, stop crying. And it's not sexist to expect a woman to be able to pass the same physical tests as a man if they are trying for the same job.
 @jlynnhood For starters, "dumb down" is pretty sexist.
@Bianca What's sexist about that?
"...elite commando jobs..." has a funny ring to it for me. Some things in the military you can sign up for, but those assigned the "elite commando jobs" aren't just random troops given the detail. When I served, the opportunities were there, but not everybody stepped up to the plate, or was even qualified to do so. The "elite commando jobs" aren't for every body, regardless of gender.
Women are only given an option to serve where they are capable of performing their duty; I can't understand what the all the fuss is about... if they qualify, let them serve. I seriously doubt that many women will egerly volunteer into grunt unit or special OPS, just to be in the battlefield. We already have many jobs that require our women and men serve in front line everyday. There are no front line as with previous wars. my interpretation is that women are mearly given an option to serve any unit they are capable of serving without drawing a line. I am guessing most of Armed services already have female pilots on front line dropping bombs or on an intellegency gethering mission.
Â
One of the Army principles- Employ your unit in accordance with its capabilities
Â
Relax everyone, No unit Commander or our government folks will purposedly place our women in front line just because. All military unit practice risk management and I am sure they will evaluate when and where our service women can be served effectively. Sure, our Armed Forces are not perfect when it comes to serving together (Sexual tension to harassments) will cause few wrinkles at times; but they already have rules and guidance and just need to enforce and make the Commanders more accountable. Of course this is not an easy subject to digest, but we are Americans, we have freedom of choices, even in the services. I bow to all service members and Hooah!
Didn't we learn anything when Pvt Judy Benjamin joined the "Thornbirds"?Â
Anyone willing to go to war.... needs their head examined in the first place..... Ha! :D)  Good luck, good journey and thank you for your service.....
So the next war we lose we can just say 'so what? you beat a bunch of girls.'
@70MonteCarlo --- You clearly have never heard of "Mama Bear."Â Good luck beating her.
 @Bianca  @70MonteCarlo "Mama Bear" stays close to the cubs and you best believe she will lay the smaketh down protecting those cubs. The cubs don't leave home though.Â
Â
Unlike that stupid movie GI Jane, the Special Operational Forces will not modify their standards for women and they will have an extremely hard time passing the standards. Like the move Men in Black, âthe best of the best of the bestâ and that is for the men. I guess for the women it would be the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best MIGHT make it.
 @dkgiovenco "Special Operational Forces will not modify their standards for women and they will have an extremely hard time passing the standards." Which in turn will lead the Feminists to starting a campaign that the military is discriminating women from these jobs.
(But actually I'd even be surprised if the Feminist support this. You see, the modern feminist is beyond obsessed with the promotion of women's entitlement and preferential selection for all the goodies. If they really were about equality, they would have been fighting for women registering for the draft. They haven't been. Â
It is not about brains or sharp shooting or understanding tactics. Can the female carry a 180 pound wounded comrade out of harms way and save his life? No. They are built different. So if you go on long range patrol with a female you better not get wounded or you will have to terminate yourself to keep the enemy from doing even worse to you.
@MonroeMad --- "Can the female carry a 180 pound wounded comrade out of harms way and save his life? No." You sure about that? There are plenty of men who couldn't carry that load, too. So your point is meaningless.Â
 @MonroeMad Spoken like someone who has never served.
Â
Being able to carry a wounded soldier is the tiniest fraction. In special forces you're taught to take care of yourself. If you're carrying someone then the person you're carrying screwed up, or it was just their time.
Â
Special Forces training (SEAL, PJOC, Ranger) is vastly more mental than it is physical. In all my training the physical, even the "hard" physical was a snap compared to the mental you go through.
Â
Yes, you need to be in shape, but even special forces (I use special forces broadly) trainers will tell you, the men that show up that look like ripped linebackers and are all gung ho, are the first to wash out. It is the average guy, with the average body, who is quiet, and just DOES without question. Those are the ones who generally pass.
Â
Treading water for eight hours in uniform with boots on in 55 degree water, then hitting the beach and running four miles in full combat gear is about 20% physical, and 80% mental.
@Howard Beale @MonroeMad Oh yeah spoken like some one who went through Buds or the Q Course. yeah i am sure you have first hand knowlege of being a Seal. care to elaberate on it some more?
 @Howard Beale  @MonroeMad You are pompous. I was Navy -vietnam and Army post vietnam I actually have honorable discharges from 2 branches..
 @Howard Beale Your battle buddy didn't screw up, if he or she gets hurt?
 @Howard Beale  @MonroeMad It depends on your definition of running as well as the time frame of which you are expected to complete as well as the weight of the combat gear but I agree the human body can endure much with a positive attitude and determination.
Soldiers? I don't have soldiers! I've got girls. Girls are what you sleep with after the war, not, not what you command during the war. (spits)  - General Jimmy Dugan
 @quorndawg -- Good movie. Tom Hanks rocked it!
I think this boils down to their safety in other countries, put a group of women in the middle of Iraq on security patrol and they will have a target on them just for their gender... I am all for equal rights especially since some of these gals would far exceed my abilities as a soldier, however safety should come first for any and all of our military so I guess this would need to be a situation based decision from the commander in charge..
If they pass the darn requirements they are a soldier and let them fight - problem is when they go 'sue happy' and cry "oh he sexually harassed me... he is just doing this because I am a woman...he is singling me out and hurt my feelings blah blah blah..."
Â
If the military wants to get over that piece honestly make an all women unit with no men in it... seriously inter mixing the sexes contrary to whatever anyone else says is just a dam distraction when you get the ones who really can't hack it and all they cause is DRAMA!
@Freespeech   Women can work along side men.   But both sexes must be taught that the other is not to be used or abused.  Women shouldn't be crying harassment at the drop of a hat and men shouldn't be treating women like we are just there for their amusement.  Not every woman will be able to meet the standards (and I don't think the standards should be changed), neither can all men. Â
 @Murigen 'men shouldn't be treating women like we are just there for their amusement'
Â
hey....you can fight habib all you want but don't be messin with our amusement...that's where us guys draw the line....
I'm cool with women serving in combat arms, just as long as this is not a metaphor for the current practice of handing out "participation" ribbons to our kids.
@snowman well, there will always be that risk, they make the cut, and make the theather, but their CO, or what ever, may not use them. If something like that happens, they'll get the ribbon, for sitting in the waiting room
what's the big deal...i'm a guy and i go commando around the house a lot...or is this a different 'commando'...
Few, if any, women could get through the physical requirements for Ranger training. And for those few who could get through the full training schedule an extended deployment would be beyond their ability just because their bodies could not keep up with months worth of physical exertion. Have a look at a combat load in Afghanistan and reflect upon carrying that load day after day for months.Â
Â
Women can handle combat just fine. But accommodations for the vanishingly few that can make it through something like Marine Recon are a waste of time and money.Â
@Iconoclast Not to mention, the other monthly issue that may affect them, for combat troops of just men, this is not an issue that needs to be addressed. For women, it happens, and it must be considered/evaluated as a potential risk, and then mitigated.
Just more woman's LIP....er Liberation.
The "Fall of USA" is at hand.....
 @Jack60 eenie, meenie, niney, mo... I choose this lame posting.  I've served with some women who would make you their bi-atch.  I am sure you would just find a bigger weapon, instead of accepting your defeat.  Also, the only Fall of the USA you will see is during the season.