Not the full "women in combat" scenario, but closer.
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-sources-military-roles-women-003743068.html
Comments?
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-sources-military-roles-women-003743068.html
Comments?
I think it is ridiculous that women are not permitted to serve in the Infantry, so long as they are able to meet the same physical fitness requirements as men (with no "allowances" made to account for statistically weaker upper body strength among women). Gender should not be the determining factor; strength needed for the job should be. Arbitrarily basing assignments to combat roles on gender inappropriately assumes that all women are not capable of handling the job, while all men are. Not true. Rather, the standard needs to be how heavy a rucksack can you carry over a given distance and whether you capable of dragging a wounded Infantry soldier to relative safety.
That said, this action is a necessary first step in the process of achieving true equality over the long term. The new APFT is a good first step as well, because it measures what is important.
If that ever happens, I think Selective Service registration should be mandatory for everyone (not just men).
WRT Selective Service, I doubt things will change. The reason, IMHO, is that the mass public is OK with women who WANT/choose to serve in the military being allowed to serve in combat but is NOT ok with forcing women into the military, even in non-combatant roles.
I'm not suggesting the above position is right or wrong, but I think it's what you'd generally hear if you surveyed the masses. And that's what Congress listens to.
WRT Selective Service, I doubt things will change. The reason, IMHO, is that the mass public is OK with women who WANT/choose to serve in the military being allowed to serve in combat but is NOT ok with forcing women into the military, even in non-combatant roles.
I'm not suggesting the above position is right or wrong, but I think it's what you'd generally hear if you surveyed the masses. And that's what Congress listens to.
You're probably right, but that's a bullsh#t reason (I note that you said you didn't agree or disagree with it, so I don't direct it to you).
My understanding of the draft was that it was used, primarily, as a way to fill positions in units in the Army and Marines participating in things like infantry and armor. In WWII, I understand people were drafted into the Navy as well.
If you take away the ban on women serving in combat directly, what is the continual legal justification for keeping involuntary service a luxury only afforded to the male of the species? In my view, such a sex-based distinction should not survive intermediate scrutiny under judicial review (if it were to come to that).
My dad was drafted during Vietnam. He served honorably and was always proud of his service. IIRC, for a draftee to have a larger selection of MOS/branches upon completion of Basic, he had to sign up for a third year of service. Thus, a true draftee with a two-year commitment was almost assured to be put with the infantry or an armor unit. My dad signed on for the extra year and was in the Engineer branch.
Since you mentioned Vietnam, and the number of youth rights that changed during that time, could someone explain to me why people in the military have to be 21 to consume alcohol? I'm going to be 21 soon anyway, but I just think that it's ridiculous that someone can die for their country or be drafted but can't be served a draft of beer.
My personal view is that, b/c there is almost zero likelihood of this country ever reintstating the draft, it doesn't make sense for either gender to register.
I have no problem with women being required to register. However, even with gender equality, I don't see the "average" American willing to see women drafted. Thus, if Congress tried to change the law to force women to register, there would be a huge hue and cry. Given the above (no one's going to be drafted), it doesn't make sense to endure that hue and cry (if you're an MOC, that is).
So, basically, it's reduced to an esoteric discussion.
My experience may be too dated to provide information, then. FWIW, in my day, I didn't see ANY women in ANY forward deployed Armor or Infantry units until I left my Infantry battalion for a job on the Division Staff. I recall thinking at the time (while begrudingly removing my crossed rifles and replacing them with General Staff brass) that I had landed on an entirely different planet.
Since you mentioned Vietnam, and the number of youth rights that changed during that time, could someone explain to me why people in the military have to be 21 to consume alcohol? I'm going to be 21 soon anyway, but I just think that it's ridiculous that someone can die for their country or be drafted but can't be served a draft of beer.
This brings up the question posed briefly in the article of whether these new opportunities will equalize the opportunities for advancement or not. With the large number of male officers getting points in areas not open to women, will the new options make a meaninful difference or is this a difference that is even needing addressing. Are there enough other ways to raise women's OML scores that "combat arms" experience (especially given the recent opportunities) won't matter much in the overall outcomes?
I'm sure a sufficiently limber female could accomplish the same critical task.there's still one thing that men will always have going for them.
They can write their name in the snow!
Actually per the white papers I've read about diversity in the Flag Officer ranks (primarly focused on Black, Hispanic, Asian), combat arms branches experience, now called "Maneuver, Fires, and Effects " branches, is almost a prerequisite for fast tracking.The fact is, the "front-line" or "combat arms" branches are where the combat generals come from. .