The President's Wars and Women in Combat

[Wehrwolfen]

The President's Wars and Women in Combat​

By Shoshana Bryen
January 30, 2013


It is unsurprising that a president who sees war primarily as "whack-a-mole" with drones directed from afar dropping bombs on adversaries, and who believes that removing American troops from war zones ends wars, would believe that women belong in all phases of combat.

War for President Obama consists of Libya, where we "led from behind," with no "boots on the ground"; Syria, where Secretary of Defense Panetta declares at least weekly that there will be no U.S. "boots on the ground" even if the Syrians cross the president's red line on CW; and Mali, where "there is no consideration of putting any American boots on the ground at this time," according to Panetta -- just logistical support for the French, who pulled us into Libya and now want us to stand behind them in their latest adventure in the colonies. The president "ended the war" in Iraq "responsibly" by leaving the country to its indigenous warring factions plus whatever outside influences have more sticking power than we do -- that is to say, al-Qaeda and Iran. He is "ending the war" in Afghanistan "responsibly" by withdrawing all but a number of troops he won't divulge (Twenty-five hundred? Zero? Sixty thousand?), leaving the turf to indigenous warring factions and whatever outside influences have more sticking power than we do -- Iran, the Pakistani Taliban, and al-Qaeda, among others.

If your standard is removing all the boots from all the ground and ending U.S. participation in all the wars, women in combat infantry units might seem like a fairly safe bet. If combat units won't be deployed, well, then, who cares if women are in them?


Read more:
Articles: The President's Wars and Women in Combat

 

[waltky]

Granny says dey can draft her - she still got her old army boots from the Big One...

If women can serve in combat, should they register with Selective Service?
February 9, 2013 — The Pentagon’s new policy of allowing women in combat jobs has raised new questions about an issue that the U.S. Supreme Court settled 22 years ago. Should young women be required to register with the U.S. Selective Service System just as young men do?

The U.S. Department of Defense issued a Jan. 24 memo that will give more women an opportunity serve in combat roles and military jobs that had been reserved only for men. In a 6-3 vote in 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that because women were not allowed in combat, only men were legally required to register with the government under the Military Selective Service Act. The selective service system has the names and addresses of nearly 15 million men ages 18 to 25 in its files, according to the agency’s website. The military is currently all-volunteer, so the service, once called ‘the draft,” isn’t used.

Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the selective service system, said Congress would likely change the law and require women to register because the Pentagon has allowed women in combat roles. However, no bill has been introduced in Congress to do that, he said. Several students at Forsyth Technical Community College and Winston-Salem State University had mixed views last week about whether women should be legally required to register for selective service if the country has an emergency and Congress and President Barack Obama start a new draft.

Celicia Davis of Advance, the founder and adviser of the Student Veterans Association at Forsyth Tech, said she supports women registering for selective service. “I think all people should serve,’ said Davis, who served as an Army specialist at Fort Bragg. “Our country was founded on freedom, and freedom isn’t free.” Nolan West, a 17-year-old student at FTCC, said women should not be required to sign up for a draft. “If we need troops, men can be there,” West said. “We need women in civilian jobs.” Forsyth Tech student Ema Seferovic, 16, of Kernersville disagreed, saying that women should be included in any draft. “It’s an equality thing,” Seferovic said. “What makes men more qualified to fight in a war?”

Jade Gray of Winston-Salem, a 16-year-old FTCC student, agreed with Seferovic. Women registering for a draft and fighting in combat are steps toward equality for men and women, Gray said. “It is hypocritical to fight for women’s equality and for women not to go through a draft,” she said. FTCC student Thomas Hiott, 18, of Lewisville, said he has registered with the selective service system. “I know it’s the law for men, but women should have a choice,” Hiott said. However, Denise Evans, 45, a Forsyth Tech student, said Congress shouldn’t require women to register for a draft because women can volunteer to join the military. “Men can’t have children,” Evans said. “They should be required to register with selective service.”

MORE

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says ,"Yea, Hillary's an ol' battle-ax...

Panetta Says Hillary Clinton Inspired His Women-in-Combat Decision
February 15, 2013 – Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Hillary Clinton inspired his decision to allow women in combat.

“And in many ways, I have to tell you, it was her inspiration that encouraged me to move forward to be able to bring down the last barriers for women in the Department of Defense and to give them the ability to have a chance to engage in combat. I thank you for that inspiration,” Panetta told Clinton at a Pentagon ceremony on Thursday. Panetta bestowed the Defense Department’s highest honor--the Distinguished Civilian Service Award--on the former secretary of state.

Panetta praised Clinton as “one of the most informed, most passionate, and most dedicated public servants that I've had the privilege to serve alongside. She has devoted her life to expanding opportunities for everyone, to build a better future for this country and the world, because she believes everyone deserves the chance to fulfill their dreams and their aspirations.”

Last month, Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, signed an order giving women the same opportunities to serve in front-line combat positions. "Not everyone is going to be able to be a combat soldier. But everyone is entitled to a chance," Panetta said.

Source

See also:

Panetta Praises Hillary Clinton As Someone Who ‘Understood the Importance of Intelligence Operations’
February 15, 2013 – Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta honored his "dear friend" Hillary Clinton Thursday, calling her "a strong and dedicated partner of the Department of Defense" and "one of the finest public servants of our time."

“In my past role as CIA director, she was someone who understood the importance of intelligence, understood the importance of intelligence operations, understood the importance of doing everything we could do to be able to go after those who attacked our country on 9/11,” Panetta said. “As a senator, she saw the terror of that moment firsthand. And she never lost sight of the fact that we had to go after those who attacked us on 9/11 and use every capability we have. And she was always there supporting our missions and supporting our operations, and I appreciate that support, particularly during the bin Laden operation.”

In Thursday’s ceremony at the Pentagon, where Clinton received Defense Department’s Distinguished Civilian Service Award, Panetta did not mention the terror attacks in Benghazi, which rank as one of the Obama administration's notable intelligence failures. However, he did mention that he and Hillary have taken part in tough policy discussions "involving Afghanistan and Syria and terrorist attacks." He also mentioned how closely the two have worked together: “During the time that we worked together as secretaries, Hillary and I did all we could to sustain the tightest possible bonds between ourselves and our departments. Together, we have dealt with some very tough issues. We've dealt with a lot of the threats that confront this country across the world.”

But despite their close working relationship, Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 7 that he never talked to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorists attacked U.S. government personnel at two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Two of Clinton's State Department employees -- Ambassador Chris Stevens and Information Management Officer Sean Smith -- were killed in the attacks that Panetta and Clinton never spoke about that day. Two former Navy SEALs who worked for the CIA, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, also were killed.

MORE

 

[Sallow]

The President's Wars and Women in Combat​

By Shoshana Bryen
January 30, 2013


It is unsurprising that a president who sees war primarily as "whack-a-mole" with drones directed from afar dropping bombs on adversaries, and who believes that removing American troops from war zones ends wars, would believe that women belong in all phases of combat.

War for President Obama consists of Libya, where we "led from behind," with no "boots on the ground"; Syria, where Secretary of Defense Panetta declares at least weekly that there will be no U.S. "boots on the ground" even if the Syrians cross the president's red line on CW; and Mali, where "there is no consideration of putting any American boots on the ground at this time," according to Panetta -- just logistical support for the French, who pulled us into Libya and now want us to stand behind them in their latest adventure in the colonies. The president "ended the war" in Iraq "responsibly" by leaving the country to its indigenous warring factions plus whatever outside influences have more sticking power than we do -- that is to say, al-Qaeda and Iran. He is "ending the war" in Afghanistan "responsibly" by withdrawing all but a number of troops he won't divulge (Twenty-five hundred? Zero? Sixty thousand?), leaving the turf to indigenous warring factions and whatever outside influences have more sticking power than we do -- Iran, the Pakistani Taliban, and al-Qaeda, among others.

If your standard is removing all the boots from all the ground and ending U.S. participation in all the wars, women in combat infantry units might seem like a fairly safe bet. If combat units won't be deployed, well, then, who cares if women are in them?


Read more:
Articles: The President's Wars and Women in Combat

Boy you folks are sure hungry to have the blood of American troops and innocent civilians spilled to show how damned "powerful" we are..

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd's g/f's prob'ly would qualify `cause dey's manly womens...

Report: Few women will qualify for land combat
Sunday, February 24, 2013 - Loophole feared in ‘gender-neutral’ qualifications

A new report to Congress predicts that relatively few women will be able to perform land combat tasks on the same level as men, and it says the Pentagon’s pledge to maintain “gender-neutral” physical standards has a loophole. Meanwhile, the Marine Corps, viewed as the service most resistant to opening the infantry to women, will test male and female troops together in strength and endurance to determine how women can perform ground warfare, according to an internal memo obtained by The Washington Times. The congressional report and the Marine Corps memo come as pro-defense conservatives are exploring ways to ensure that the Obama administration does not ease rigorous standards as a way to make sure women qualify for direct combat jobs.

When Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta last month removed the policy prohibiting women from serving in direct combat units — infantry, armor and special operations — he vowed not create two standards, citing the 1993 Gender-Neutral Occupational Performance Standards as the guide. However, that law might not prevent the creation of a two-tiered qualification system, the Congressional Research Service said in a Feb. 7 report to Congress. The Times has obtained a copy of the document. Citing the Air Force as an example, the report said that the armed services today employ significantly different physical standards for men and women. It notes that women are not required to do as many situps and pullups or to run as fast as men.

“The use of the term ‘gender-neutral physical standards’ raises questions depending on how it is defined,” David Burrelli, a military-manpower specialist, said in the report. “A plain reading of the term suggests that men and women would be required to meet the same physical standards in order to be similarly assigned. However, in the past, the services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and women must exert the same amount of energy in a particular task, regardless of the work that is actually accomplished by either.”

Said Elaine Donnelly, who runs the Livonia, Mich.-based Center for Military Readiness: “Despite a law mandating ‘gender-neutral’ standards, every military training program open to both men and women is gender-normed in some way. These standards can only be justified if women are not eligible for fighting battalions.” Fueling fears of lower combat standards for women is a statement from Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that if the military branches conclude that standards are too tough for women to succeed, they better have a good reason why the bar is that high. Mr. Burrelli says the 1993 law is vague because it does not contain a clear definition of gender-neutral.

Read more: Few women will qualify for land combat: report - Washington Times

See also:

Listen up ladies! Next time there's a draft, Uncle Sam might want you too
February 25, 2013 WASHINGTON — Tennnnnn-hut, ladies! The next time Uncle Sam comes calling, he's probably going to want you, too.

The Obama administration's recent decision to lift the ban on women in combat has opened the door for a change in the law that currently compels only men between age 18 and 25 to register for a military draft, according to legal experts and military historians. Never before has the country drafted women into military service, and neither the administration nor Congress is in a hurry to make them register for a future call-up. But, legally, they may have no other choice. It is constitutional to register only men for a draft, the Supreme Court ruled more than three decades ago, because the reason for registration is to create a pool of potential combat troops should a national emergency demand a rapid increase in the size of the military. Women were excluded from serving in battlefield jobs, so there was no reason to register them for possible conscription into the armed forces, the court held.

Now that front-line infantry, armor, artillery and special operations jobs are open to female volunteers who can meet the physical requirements, it will be difficult for anyone to make a persuasive argument that women should continue to be exempt from registration, said Diane Mazur, a law professor at the University of Florida and a former Air Force officer. "They're going to have to show that excluding women from the draft actually improves military readiness," Mazur said. "I just don't see how you can make that argument." Groups that backed the end of the ban on women in combat also support including women in draft registration as a matter of basic citizenship. Women should have the same civic obligations as men, said Greg Jacob, a former Marine Corps officer and policy director for the Service Women's Action Network. "We see registration as another step forward in terms of equality and fairness," Jacob said.

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., supports draft registration for women, according to his spokeswoman. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., who heads the House Armed Services Committee, hasn't made up his mind. McKeon said through a spokesman that he's awaiting a Defense Department report due in the coming weeks that will assess the legal impact of lifting the ban women in combat on draft registration. But if you're worried a draft notice is going to soon be in your mailbox, take a deep breath. There is no looming national crisis that makes a military draft likely.

MORE

 

[waltky]

Women training in artillery...

Female soldiers breaking new ground in combat roles in the Army and Fort Bragg
March 31, 2013 - The question of whether women can serve in Army roles previously restricted to men is being answered on Fort Bragg, where the male-only world of artillery has opened to female soldiers.

Last summer, the 18th Fires Brigade began a pilot program aimed at introducing female officers to what were once all-male units. The program began even before then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the repeal of rules against women serving in male-only positions. Nearly a year later, the brigade is preparing to break ground again when it receives the first female-enlisted soldiers in an artillery unit in May. Five women officers now serve in the 18th Fires Brigade. One, 1st Lt. Shannon Syphus, said she fell in love with artillery while at officer candidate school more than three years ago. At the time, Syphus said, she did not know she was barred from commanding a cannon platoon.

But that changed with the 18th Fires Brigade. Syphus took leadership of 1st Platoon, C Battery, 3rd Battalion, 321st Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, in November. "I didn't know prior that it wasn't open," Syphus said. "But I just fell in love. I can get on the radio and call for fire and something explodes. I love the technical aspects -- the math and the precision. You can't find that with any other job in the Army." Since joining the unit, Syphus said, she has been treated with nothing but respect. Artillerymen have to be strong enough to lift a 100-pound, 155 mm round. They also have to know physics, math and meteorology to make the calculations necessary to put a round on target from miles away.

Sgt. Justin Clawson, a gun chief in Syphus' platoon, was convinced she would not be able to cut it. "This is an all-male world," Clawson said. "I really felt a female couldn't do what we do. But she changed the entire battery's mind. "I know she can lead us." Capt. Rusty Varnado, a brigade spokesman, said Syphus and the other female officers are treated no different than their male counterparts. "She is in the same position I was when I was a lieutenant," he said. "The soldiers just see a lieutenant, and the women do just as well, if not better, than the guys." Lt. Col. Joe Bookard, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 321st Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, said Syphus is a role model to female soldiers. "We expect her to know her job," Bookard said. "It's a tough certification process. She performs very, very well."

Bookard said there was little concern that problems would arise from having a woman take command of 40 male soldiers used to living in the male-only artillery world. "In my business, we don't work off gut feelings. We work off facts," he said. The brigade commander, Col. Robert Morschauser, agreed. "There were some integration issues people said we may have, but we've had no issues whatsoever," he said. "They've done very well." Morschauser, who saw women pulling more than their own weight when called to do so in combat situations in Iraq, said he wants the best soldiers, no matter their gender. "I'm looking for the best unit," he said. "I don't care what you look like."

MORE

See also:

Moving toward a 'gender-neutral' Army
March 24, 2013 - It was 2004 in Iraq, and Cassandra Partee knew something didn't feel right.

She was driving back from a five-hour patrol that had turned into an 11-hour patrol. It was 1 a.m., and she scanned the road as a vehicle up ahead swept the area with floodlights. Then came something that wasn't supposed to be there, something attached to a guardrail. "At that point, there's really nothing you can do about it, just pray," she said. "So I stepped on the gas and prayed. The bomb went off on my truck." The blast injured Partee and her commander, also a woman. It was the kind of potentially hazardous duty that women in Iraq and Afghanistan routinely performed. Partee, who received a Purple Heart for her injuries, had trained in field artillery before her first deployment. But once in Iraq, she did whatever she was called upon to do.

She drove trucks. She went with combat patrols on house-to-house raids because the U.S. wanted female troops to search Iraqi women civilians. Earlier this year, Partee was back at Fort Eustis in Newport News when outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta decided to lift restrictions that would open up infantry positions to women, moving them closer. Partee, who is now a staff sergeant, accepted the headlines with a shrug. "I was like, 'Oh, that's nice.' I don't have a problem with it, but that's because that is what I've known. It just seems normal to me."

Last gender barrier?

For the Army, the work of transforming Panetta's groundbreaking move into new standards falls to Training and Doctrine Command, headquartered at Fort Eustis. TRADOC oversees 32 Army schools organized under eight specialized centers that train more than 500,000 each year. Panetta's decision rescinds a 1994 rule that blocked women from serving in smaller ground combat units below the brigade level. Generally, brigades are based farther from the front lines and number between 3,000 and 5,000 people. Women already serve as combat pilots in the Navy and Air Force. The Navy recently opened up the submarine service to female sailors. The 1994 barrier was seen as one of the last gender barriers in the military.

Panetta and other military leaders said the policy was outdated, meant for a time when wars were fought by conventional, standing armies with clearly demarcated front lines. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were nothing like that. Women – and men, for that matter – could easily be in harm's way while in driving in a convoy or searching civilians, the type of duty Partee did all the time As for opening up more jobs to women, Partee is fine with that. Her father was a command sergeant major with 24 years of service. One brother is a staff sergeant, another is a sergeant first class. She has followed in her father's career, becoming a specialist in chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological threats. "I like knowing I have other opportunities to go to different areas," she said.

MORE