Many women have been fighting the system since 1994 to lift the ban on military women in combat. It appears they finally won…
In a surprise move, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta removed the military ban on women in combat on Wednesday. Lifting the ban will open service on the front lines to thousands of women.
According to the Associated Press, the move was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Smaller exemptions to the rule were passed in 2012, but the new decision opens up 238,000 positions where women were formerly banned.
Women have been traditionally barred from serving in ground combat units, such as infantry, artillery, armor or as special operations commandos. However, women have been serving in combat roles for years as well, as recent conflicts have blurred the lines of combat and non-combat duties. While the ACLU last year sued the Pentagon for the right for women to take up positions on the front line, and the Marines recently began allowing women to serve as officers, the timing of Panetta’s announcement comes as a surprise.
Some Republicans have opposed putting women in combat because of alleged physical inferiority to men. However, a survey of several NATO allies with women in front line roles in Afghanistan indicated that, far from causing problems, female officers actually performed better in intelligence-gathering roles than their male counterparts.
Military chiefs must report their initial implementation plans by May 15, and can request special exceptions until January 2016 for any positions they feel cannot be open to women.
Does anyone else see what I see regarding the GOP? They are increasingly going batcrap insane. Here’s another example of their extreme sexist (anti-woman) point of view:
Last week, Rick Santorum explained that he was opposed to any plans by the Pentagon to place women in combat positions, asserting that the “types of emotions that are involved” would compromise combat effectiveness.
Santorum quickly “clarified,” saying that he didn’t mean that women were emotionally unsuited for serving in combat but rather that male soldiers would be protective of female soldiers and inclined to compromise the mission in order to defend them.
Not surprisingly, Bryan Fischer agrees with Santorum … and is even willing to defend the view that Santorum himself rejected: that women are inherently emotionally unfit for combat:
But not only are women emotionally unfit for combat but also physically unfit because, as Fischer explained in his column today, ”the average female soldier does not even have the arm strength to throw a grenade far enough to keep herself from getting blown up.”
First, he claims to have said “blah” not “Blacks” in a controversial statement.
Now he says he was not backing down on what he said about women in the military but shamelessly waffles like the a**hole that he is…
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum insisted on Friday that when he claimed there were too many “emotions” for women to serve in combat roles, he was talking about men’s feelings, not women’s. (Ed. Note: Pants On Fire!)
Many had taken remarks the candidate made to CNN’s John King on Thursday to mean women were too emotional to fight on the front lines.
“I do have concerns about women in front line combat,” Santorum told King. “I think that could be a very compromising situation people naturally, you know, may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved.”
NBC’s Ann Curry gave Santorum a chance to clarify his remarks the next day.
“I meant exactly what I said,” the former Pennsylvania senator said. “When you have men and women together in combat, I think there’s — men have the emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way. I think it’s something that’s natural, that’s very much in our culture to be protective.”
“Some people might listen to that quote and think you meant you were concerned about women being emotional,” Curry noted.
“Oh, no,” Santorum replied. “No, the issue is — and certainly one that has been talked about for a long, long time — is how men would react to seeing women in harm’s way, potentially being injured or in a vulnerable position, and not being concerned about accomplishing the mission.”