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

  • I-5 Bridge Collapse
    Three people were pulled from the water after I-5 bridge collapses over Skagit River

  • Ban Lifted
    Washington state leaders hail vote to allow openly gay Boy Scouts

  • There's a Zone for That
    Mapping out a plan for marijuana growers and sellers
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

  • jhosford4 wrote...
    it's simple
    January 24, 2013 1:44 pm
    Everyone has to pass the exact requirements, wehter it is phisical, mental, whatever. The problem is that you will have a higher percentage of women not pass the physical side, then the women's rights people will claim wrong-doing, then they will quietly change the requirements to claim equality. I have no problem with women there, just remember that equal oportunity also has to mean equal qualifications...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    What i keep hearing which is rediculous.....
    January 24, 2013 2:16 pm
    Is that people are trying to say women are already on the front lines in these conflicts etc.... That is rediculous, these statements can only come from people who have no facking clue about the wars we're fighting and how women are being utilized in the military... first, there are no "Front lines" in the war we're fighting, women are certainly not being utilized like infantry men, they are indeed coming into contact with the enemy because the enemy is mixed with the civilian population... women come into combat when our convoys are hit or bases are attacked but they aren't being tasked to go seek and destroy the enemy... That's rediculous.. An infantryman's job is to seek out the enemy and kill him... that's his job... currently women in the military are in supporting roles where yes they may see combat but only because they are being attacked... I was in communications in the military so i worked with women all the time... there are some great female soldiers but they are not physically capable of doing what the infantry must do... i'm not being sexist... just honest.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • don over taxed wrote...
    Women in Combat
    January 24, 2013 4:18 pm
    Watching Hillary the other day....is the reason they are putting women in combat. She can rip old Bill a new behing.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HikerACE wrote...
    Hillary
    January 24, 2013 5:55 pm
    Right. She handled it well when her plane came "under fire" while flying into a secured airfield. In combat I doubt she would know what battle she is fighting or which way the enemy was.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Basso wrote...
    What is next...
    January 24, 2013 6:57 pm
    This just out, the Health and Human Services secretary announces today all males over the age of 18 need to be neutered, later in the day they announced their resignation. How much more? I for one am not enjoying the gutting of America.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    When they play basketball in down time -
    January 24, 2013 7:40 pm
    Men can be shirts - Women can be skins!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WashingtonCitizen wrote...
    So when are the females going to start registering
    January 24, 2013 9:14 pm
    for selective service? You know.....since they can do everything as well as or better than a man.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    As long as there's no war, there's no problem.
    January 24, 2013 9:49 pm
    Thus the liberal-think on the issue. The word which will always escape them, as it implies logic, is "Duty."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sweetpea123 wrote...
    I don't understand...
    January 24, 2013 10:28 pm
    If women are not already in "combat roles", how is it my good friend's daughter had half her shoulder blown off by an RPG while on patrol in Iraq? Is the designation of "combat" duty so that they can get the same combat pay as the men, as I've also been told that women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan were often put into "support" roles, which meant they didn't get combat pay, even though they were in the arena, going on patrol and risking their lives, the same as their male counterparts. I would really like to understand it fully. I'm sure my friend's daughter would like to as well, so she can tell her children that she was wounded in war, not just that she was in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • MmMerrifield wrote...
    why did we keep them away in the first place?
    January 25, 2013 12:46 am
    I don't see why they didn't let the women that wanted to have a main combat role do it in the first place. If the requirements are the same than all is well, yes women do tend to process data differently than men but why is that seen as a bad thing?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • froggy wrote...
    I have no belief that the decision for this has anything...
    January 25, 2013 3:18 am
    to do with fairness. I would bet money that the voluntary enlistment rate is way down and the military simply needs soldiers and this is the way to increase the numbers of the infantry. I haven't seen any reports for this lately, but that is what I am betting is the driver of "sanctioning" women being placed in designated combat roles.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }