AP: b6ff7dab-ac52-4ed8-bf25-ac3c29257c44
In a May 9, 2012 file photo, Capt. Sara Rodriguez, 26, of the 101st Airborne Division, carries a litter of sandbags during the Expert Field Medical Badge training at Fort Campbell, Ky. The Pentagon is lifting its ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after generations of limits on their service, defense officials said Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013. (AP Photo/Kristin M. Hall, File)

Panetta announces combat jobs previously closed to women will open

BY Alyssa Kleven  on January 24, 2013 @ 8:20 am (Updated: 12:55 pm - 1/24/13 )

Letting women join in on combat is a historic change, one which was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.

Allowing women to serve in combat roles will strengthen the U.S. military's ability to win wars, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday, shortly before his official announcement of the landmark change.

While women have served in combat positions for over 10 years, in Iraq and Afghanistan, not all positions have been open to both genders.

Laura Browder, an author and professor at University of Richmond told Seattle's Morning News she's heard a lot of arguments that women just aren't capable of doing the job. But it's only a matter of time before we see women taking on these other combat jobs and achieving the results expected of those positions. "I think that just as in the world of sports we've seen women achieving more and more over the years and decades."

Related: Service members weigh in on women in combat

According to Browder, in just 50 years, impossible roles for women have become possible as expectations change. "In the military that's going to be true for women, as well."

These women will hardly be the first of their kind in the military. Though, according to Browder, it will be good that they won't have the added pressure of being the military's pioneers, like the women who were a part of the gender integration at the Virginia Military Institute in the 1990s.

"I talked to one of the first VMI women and for her it was just an extremely tough situation. There was so much pressure - she washed out. But that's not as true anymore."

Some soldiers would wash out when they can't meet the physical requirements for their job - and for CBS military analyst and retired army Col. Jeff McCausland, that's still a concern.

While someone may not, because of physiological reasons, develop the upper body strength to free lift a 100-pound artillery shell, the units that have been closed to women in combat have even more trying physical standards.

"There is a question as to whether some physical things you can do or cannot do, male or female," said McCausland.

But regardless of the additional training, Browder said that she's heard from multiple women that combat is the real test. "An army captain told me, 'When you're a soldier, combat is the real test, and it's as though you've read books about riding a bicycle and studied it, but never got to get on a bike.'"

It's not as though women have never seen combat - if Panetta lifts the ban on the women in combat, it will be only a few remaining specialties. But that very small limit has been an easily understood reason for women not registering for the draft.

Browder said it would be very difficult to justify not asking women to register for the draft. "That said, we haven't had a draft in a very long time and I haven't talked to anybody who has seen the draft coming back anytime soon."

The announcement follows disturbing news about sexual assaults in the military - mainly the Air Force. A disturbing number of reports of sexual assault were recorded last year even as the military worked to curb misconduct in the wake of a sex scandal at its training headquarters in Texas.

But as women are integrated into more combat roles Browder thinks it will cause fewer issues. "One of the things we're seeing in that report, isn't necessarily that assaults have gone up, but that women are being freer to step forward."

What's actually happening in the military has been happening over many professions according to Browder.

"When I started off as a professor 20 years ago, sexual harassment in universities was much more common than it is now, when there are many more women in positions of leadership, and I think that's true of many professions. I think it's certainly going to be true of the military."

In her research, Browder said that she talked to many women who have been in the military for over 20 years and they often speak about some of the changes they have seen taking place over the course of their careers. The awareness of the issue grows "and as women and men become less tolerant of sexual abuse, it's going to go down."

Panetta announced at a Pentagon news conference 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 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.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Alyssa Kleven, MyNorthwest.com Editor
Alyssa Kleven is an editor and content producer at MyNorthwest.com. She enjoys doting over her adorable dachshund Winnie - named for Arcade Fire front-man Win Butler.
More Local News
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (31)


  • Add A Comment

  • DesertRez wrote...
    As long as
    January 24, 2013 9:29 am
    the physical requirements are the same. Currently they are not; physicial fitness requirements for woman are lower. I met a few marine woman that could probably kick my....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    I don't understand why womens right groups are cheering this decision
    January 24, 2013 9:36 am
    Being put in life and death situation while fighting idiotic wars that weaken not strengthen our country are certainly not something one should strive for
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    because I want solgiers thinking about killing the enemy and not worrying about political corectness like us in the corporate world, why not have a total segregated female unit?
    January 24, 2013 3:55 pm
    segragate as much as possible, why not? and yes I have noticed phony sexual harasments filed by women in the corporate world. Why do you think that Being managers will not be in a meeting alone with a women. In business we cant segregrate, but in a combat unit-why Not? There is a lot of money to be made by a women thru a sexual harrasmnt lawsuit-don't kid yourselves.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    If they can pass the same physical tests as the men.
    January 24, 2013 9:34 am
    Why not? I would bet it will be a lot harder then the ladies realize. We'll see. It surely won't make the military stronger.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DesertRez wrote...
    Ya
    January 24, 2013 10:44 am
    It would have to be because 90 pounds of gear is 90 pounds regardless of genitals. I have reservations as well considering road side bombs and bodies melted into seats only identifiable by dental records, but hey that's combat. If it were my daughter I would talk her out of it but it's their decision.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cop4hire wrote...
    Why not?
    January 24, 2013 11:09 am
    Let's see. If a man is captured he is likely beheaded. If a women is captured she will be gang raped beyond your imagination. How do you think the men in that unit will respond? Very bad idea.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    I have serious reservations regarding this issue.
    January 24, 2013 9:48 am
    1. Physical requirements need to be the same or will they be lowered to accomodate success for women. 2. If combat roles are approved that means all women will be required to fill those roles not just volunteers. 3. As the Navy learned when women went to sea, there was a serious issue with women fulfilling their tours at sea requiring additional tours for men due to pregnancies. Women live for attention, serving in a military unit does not change that need, not a good mix.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • anotherfencewalker wrote...
    Way d' go ladies..
    January 24, 2013 10:38 am
    You wanted respect and regard, at least in this category the Pentagon is giving it to you. By the way, if it ever comes back, and it might, you'll be subject to the draft as well.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SMarti018 wrote...
    Bad Idea!!!
    January 24, 2013 11:08 am
    This case isn't about woman's rights... This is life and death in a combat environment. Call me what you want but women are not a physically and mentally capable of handling the front lines of a war zone! not to mention the "Distractions" that would be involved if allowed in these roles. It would make us less combat effective and we would lose more american lives because of it. Unless its WWIII and we are running out of able bodied soldiers then this is a bad idea.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CldWtrSrf wrote...
    SMarti018 wrote...
    January 24, 2013 12:07 pm
    "Call me what you want but women are not a physically and mentally capable of handling the front lines of a war zone!" Maybe you haven't noticed SMarti018, but clearly men aren't mentally capable of handling the front lines of THESE war zones, the ones that Bush and Obama have started, the ones where Obama is murdering children with drones...and so on and so forth. This is clearly the case if you look at the disturbingly high incidents of suicide by soldiers after serving 4 or 6 or 8 tours in a never ending war where civilians are killed daily and the enemy isn't clearly defined, where they are growing opium and protecting drug lords.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    CldWtrSrf - Yes we are
    January 24, 2013 12:28 pm
    the vast majority of soldiers sailors and airmen are capable of handling the front lines of these warzones... the Suicide rate by service members vs the general public is less than a percentage point different. Obviously there are stress disorders and other issues related to deployments but our Military folks are definitely handling these deployments. Your assessment is ludicrous by the way, Stating that Bush and Obama started these wars, only an idiot like yourself would make a statement like that, or did you ignore that in 2001 terrorists lead by Osama bin Laden based and sheltered in the country of Afghanistan killed thousands of our Fellow Americans... We did not start these wars... but we'll dang sure win them. We're not just sitting in Afghanistan for the heck of it... We're trying to install a functioning Government so when we leave, we don't have to worry about terrorists using it as a staging area for another attack against our homeland.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CldWtrSrf wrote...
    Tell me again what
    January 24, 2013 1:17 pm
    Iraq had to do with 9/11? How about Somalia? Oh, Bin Laden was in Libya? Tell me again how growing opium and soldiers being forced to protect heroin trading routes protects our freedoms? You mistake me talking about the leaders as saying something is wrong with the soldiers. Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have tons of respect for most soldiers, I have ZERO respect for the leaders getting them into these positions.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • okisoji wrote...
    I'm no military expert...
    January 24, 2013 11:23 am
    ...but I'm pretty sure the caption for the above photo is incorrect. Unless I'm unclear on what "carrying a litter of sandbags" means.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    Yea messinyourpants.
    January 24, 2013 11:53 am
    I would bet if you were in charge when Pearl Harbor was bombed you would have turned the other cheek and ran. Aren't we lucky people like you were not in charge?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    HLC
    January 24, 2013 6:19 pm
    Nothing like Pearl Harbor has happened to the USA since Dec 7 1941,After all 9/11 was a small ban of outlaws who hold no allegiance to any one country.And we were attacked by the Japanese Empire at Pearl Harbor.The Korean war,Vietnam,Panama,The DR,Iraq,and Afghanistan,Bosnia were against nations or governments that hold NO THREAT to invading the USA at NO time was our sovereignty,or safety EVER in Danger. The LAST soldier who died in DEFENSE of America died in WW2 every soldiers life lost since that war was WASTED
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    This is a VERY bad Idea
    January 24, 2013 12:17 pm
    I'm not trying to discriminate against women, i'm just being honest, as a veteran who served with many women, this is a VERY bad idea. Believe me, women serve honorably in the military today and some are very good soldiers, but just being brutally honest, they are not physically fit enough to be in combat roles... Biologically we are different, simply stated, we are much bigger stronger and faster than women. the VAST majority of women in the military today would not be in if we held them to the physical fitness standards that their male counterparts must adhere to. The only reason why that is overlooked is because women are not in combat roles where meeting those physical requirements is vital to not only mission success but survival. I can't give an example any more plainly than this, what they are suggesting is, asking male soldiers who are probably 170-200 pounds to rely on female soldiers who range between about 125-140 pounds to have their backs... to be able to drag a wounded comrade out of a firefight... It's absolute nonsense... You're also suggesting that they will be able to throw a 70-90 pound ruck sack on their back and march at the same speed and not slow down a group of Male soldiers... It's a stupid idea, I can't be any more blunt about this, women can't do it... I've experienced this in my time in the military... even the top female soldiers, the most physically fit couldn't hang with the bottom 10% of males... it's setting our infantry men up for failure, it's a terrible idea and it's an idea being put forth by people who do NOT understand the Military, who do not have a clue what it's like to work with Women in the Military... Believe me i'm not saying women don't have roles in the military, just not in combat roles where physical fitness is not just a benefit but an absolute MUST...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sweetpea123 wrote...
    IMO
    January 24, 2013 10:33 pm
    It's as dicey as putting women on submarines. The logistics alone for them are a nightmare. I would hope that women would think very long and hard before deciding this is how they want to advance their careers, but then again, I would like to see our young men no longer put in harm's way either. As the mother of an active duty sailor, I cringe every time I know he's headed out on patrol. For a woman to tote heavy loads like that, I'm sorry, but the physiology of their bodies means much more likelihood that they could tear something up internally.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    very good idea -
    January 24, 2013 12:47 pm
    now the troops can make more troops! Sex is a good thing! Maybe I could be a subcontractor.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Moondoggie wrote...
    Cumba Ya, Cumba Ya,
    January 24, 2013 1:33 pm
    “Women are already fighting on the front lines. This just makes it code” If this is true, why are men dying at vastly higher rates than our female solders? When a female dies it’s because a rocket hit a barracks, not because she was involved in a firefight.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }