Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat

[D.H.W]

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has decided to lift the military's ban on women serving in combat, a senior Pentagon official has said.

The move could open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and elite commando jobs to women.

It overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to small ground-combat units.

But the military would have until 2016 to argue for any specific posts they think should remained closed to women.

The decision is expected to be formally announced on Thursday.

Lawsuit
The senior defence official told the BBC: "This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the secretary of defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Military chiefs will be asked to report back to Mr Panetta by 15 May on their initial plans to implement the new policy.

Some jobs are expected to be opened to women this year, while others - including for special forces such as the Navy Seals and the Delta Force - could take longer.

This decision could open more than 230,000 combat roles to women, many in infantry units.

Senate armed services committee chairman Carl Levin welcomed the decision.

"I support it," he said. "It reflects the reality of 21st Century military operations."

Restrictions were first eased a year ago, when the Pentagon opened up 14,500 roles, closer to the front line, which had previously been off limits to female personnel.

In November, a group of four women in the military sued the defence department over the ban, arguing that it was unconstitutional.

One of the plaintiffs, Marine Corps Capt Zoe Bedell, said existing rules had blocked her advancement in the Marines.

During the Iraq and Afghan wars, US female military personnel have worked as medics, military police and intelligence officers, sometimes attached but not formally assigned to front-line units.

As of 2012, more than 800 women were wounded in those wars, and at least 130 have died.

Women comprise 14% of America's 1.4 million active military personnel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21172033

[Bakes]

Fair.  Panetta on TV now.

[truetrini]

Unfair.

These women CANNOT meet the standards for the Physical Readiness Teasts of men.   steups.

[Bakes]

Unfair.

These women CANNOT meet the standards for the Physical Readiness Teasts of men.   steups.

Patriarchal shit talk.

If they are fit enough to serve and carry a weapon... they are fit enough to fire it in combat.  You clearly don't appreciate how ridiculous you sound making such a blanket pronouncement about ALL women.  That sounds like the kinda talk that kept blacks out of Coast Guard and Navy jobs.. "blacks lack bouyancy in water."  If a woman cannot meet the fitness standard then she won't be approved for combat, just as would a man who fails to meet the standard.  However, if the woman can show she can meet the physical readiness standard then she deserves a chance to try.

[truetrini]

Hello.  Check this.  What happens to a unit which is small and cohesice when one of these women get pregnant?

One in 10,000 women can meet the standards men are held to.

I specifically remember the USS Yellowstone and the USS Acardia  imagine 10% of thew women came back pregnant!   How does that affect the operational capabilities of a ship..ask yuhself that question.

Then how dey dealing with their period on the battle field?  steups.

You are also aware that less than 10% of active duty women actually support comabt roles for women?  Ask why!

Trying to comapre the actions of racists against blacks is rubbish.  same as homosexuals claiming that their fight for acceptance is the same as blacks fighting against discrimination.
 
This is not about patriotism or anysuch thing, it is purely about the physical demands.

There is a reason why for centuries males have always been the warriors...except in the movies though.

[Jah Gol]

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

I read this a couple months ago. It's anecdotal but still instructive I find. Play the interview too.

[truetrini]

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

I read this a couple months ago. It's anecdotal but still instructive I find. Play the interview too.

I read it and listened to it..thanks for posting.  To me as a veteran it is obvious.  This can cause serious readiness problems as far as I am concerned.  Men are naturally protective of women, mixing them already causes problems in the barracks..farless the battle field.  They just cannot do the things a man can..straight up.

there is a reason why men they separate the sexes in the olympics etc.  men have an advantage over women when it comes to STRENGTH...nothing to do woth bravery, or who is patriotic etc.  They JUST CANNOT do the damn job on the batle field or on board ships.   Physical not mental mind you.

[Jah Gol]

Perhaps the Israeli approach is best where the women soldiers are held to the identical physical standards as the men. This doesn't remove all the complications as you mentioned the protectiveness but it would ensure you have physically capable individuals.

[truetrini]

Perhaps the Israeli approach is best where the women soldiers are held to the identical physical standards as the men. This doesn't remove all the complications as you mentioned the protectiveness but it would ensure you have physically capable individuals.

First of all Canada is the ONLY nation that even attempts to make the playing field even when it comes to physical standards.

israel has all women batallions and women instructors and they serve in a division called CHEN.

ironically when Canada first opened up their standard infantry  training to women out of the first 100 women only ONE passed the physical tests.
In Canada there is an average drop out rate of 42% for women soldiers...and that is strictly NON COMBAT!

Canada recruited at one time after a series of ads, 400 women to comabe abatallions.  out of that only 100 showed up for the combat training after regular recruit training and out of that 100, 50 graduated and reported for their assignments.
Look at the physical an mental stress many vets return home from combat with, imagine women facing that shit.  Not saying women cannot fight, but can they do so on a sustained basis..I personally doubt it.

Let me see a woman line backer in the NFL first!

There is very valid reason why there is a division of the sexes in competitive sports.

[Jah Gol]

I saw segment on CNN last year about mixed units in Israel and they indicated the standards were identical to the men. Admittedly that report is my only reference point.

[elan]

Do men and women get same salary in the army?

[Mango Chow!]

Do men and women get same salary in the army?

According to rank and time in service, yes, however, the physical fitness standards are lower for women than they are for men.....but this whole issue of "women in combat" goes beyond that and, in a lot of ways, only people that have really actually served in the military may be able to understand.  Women, or the presence of women, bring a whole different dynamic to an environment of waging war that can affect readiness, effectiveness, focus and combat-sharpness.  For me, also, just from a purely spiritual standpoint, even though a war zone, in and of itself is no place for any human being, it is even less so of a place for women and children.  Everything (and then some) that Truetrini said is precisely true.  People must be watch "G.I. Jane" and get tie up!

Unfair.

These women CANNOT meet the standards for the Physical Readiness Teasts of men.   steups.

Patriarchal shit talk.

If they are fit enough to serve and carry a weapon... they are fit enough to fire it in combat.  You clearly don't appreciate how ridiculous you sound making such a blanket pronouncement about ALL women.  That sounds like the kinda talk that kept blacks out of Coast Guard and Navy jobs.. "blacks lack bouyancy in water."  If a woman cannot meet the fitness standard then she won't be approved for combat, just as would a man who fails to meet the standard.  However, if the woman can show she can meet the physical readiness standard then she deserves a chance to try.

if you would have had the good fortune to have spent some time in the military, you would be singing a different tune.....but then again, maybe not....but that is a whole separate issue..... However, it is clear that you haven't so you cannot appreciate yourself how clueless you really are with your assessment.  But just so you know, "women in combat" is a much deeper issue and carries with it, a whole different set of complications than just "physical standards"....but I know it would be a waste of time to get a fool like you to appreciate  and understand that.     

[Jah Gol]

'Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in.'

USMC Capt Katie Petronio

[truetrini]

Tis a fact that most females in the military eh want no part of combat.

I purposefully left out the problems Mango Chow iterated because that opens a whole new can of worms.  But there is ample evidence that mixing women and men tends to affect readiness.  Not to mention the fact that during the history of Israel women were especially targeted dr=uring wars and the men went out their way to protect them putting the mission in danger.  What happens to women POW's?  Raped?  Impregnated?  Supposed they are mothers?

Children born in captivity?

Look how long the occupation of Iraq and more so Afghanistan is/was!

In my opinion once you have male warriors, it is unconscionable to place women in combat roles!

And let the women have to sign up for selective service too.

Many will say it i i=ok, many will say it is not...if you have ever been in a combat zone you want MEN around you,,,not women..believe that!

[truetrini]

USMC changes fitness requirement for women
By Andrew deGrandpré - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Nov 27, 2012 11:46:04 EST
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/11/marine-corps-requires-pullups-for-womens-fitness-test-pft-112712

Female Marines soon will be required to perform pull-ups, just like male Marines do, as part of their annual physical fitness tests, the Marine Corps’ top general announced Tuesday.

The change takes effect Jan. 1, 2014, Gen. Jim Amos, the service’s commandant, alerted Marines in a force-wide message. Officials will phase in the change throughout the coming year to accommodate what is expected to be a significant adjustment.

A spokesman for the commandant declined to comment. However, the general's message makes clear that he expects this to be a success, and he has ordered all Marine units to add pull-ups training to their fitness programs during the coming year.

“Phase one,” Amos explains, “will serve as a transition period, and is intended to allow commanders and individual female Marines to adjust … training routines to prepare for implementation of the new requirements.”

The commandant’s message does not indicate why the change is being implemented, but the Marine Corps has spent nearly two years evaluating the restrictions it places on women, with an eye toward breaking down longstanding barriers where possible. Within the last year, for instance, officials have opened to female Marines dozens of jobs in tank and artillery units, among others previously the province of men only.

And although women are still prohibited from filling assignments whose primary mission is direct ground combat, officials made the historic move this past summer by enrolling two female Marines into the Corps’ Infantry Officer Course. Both ultimately washed out, and so far no volunteers have stepped forward for the course’s next iteration this winter.

Known to Marines as the PFT, the physical fitness test is one of two strength and endurance evaluations all personnel must pass each year. The other, called the Combat Fitness Test, features a host of drills Marines would be expected to perform on the battlefield.

As part of the PFT, all Marines do sit-ups and conduct a timed three-mile run. Additionally, men have been required to do pull-ups while women, viewed institutionally as having less inherent upper-body strength, have been required to perform what’s called the flexed-arm hang, hoisting themselves over the pull-up bar and holding the position for up to 70 seconds. Marines are rated based on their overall performance on each section of the test, with 300 making a perfect score.

During the coming year, as the service adjusts to the change, female Marines will have the option of doing pull-ups or the flexed-arm hang during their PFT, according to Amos’ message. But come 2014, women will be required to do at least three pull-ups to pass the PFT, with eight needed for a perfect score on that portion of the test.

Men must do three pull-ups to pass the test, with 20 required for a perfect score.

The flexed-arm hang will remain a part of the Corps’ Initial Strength Test for all female enlisted recruits and as part of the initial PFT required for female officer candidates, according to Amos’ message. However, starting in 2014, pull-ups will be a graduation requirement for boot camp and Officer Candidates School.

As Marine Corps Times reported last year senior officials have debated this idea for a while. In June 2011, following initial research at 12 installations across the Corps, the service’s physical readiness officer produced a detailed position paper calling for the test’s upper-body portion to be amended.

That study of 318 female Marines found that, on average, they could perform 1.63 pull-ups. More than 21 percent performed at least three, and 37 percent performed at least three when lower-body movement — a banned practice frequently known as “kip” — was allowed.

The discussion was scuttled late last year, with no indication it would be resumed. It’s not immediately clear why the Corps has changed course now.

[Mango Chow!]

Do men and women get same salary in the army?

Also, it is important to note that, as servive members get older, the physical fitness standards get progressively (or, regressively, as some may see it) lower as welll and this applies to both men AND women.

[Mango Chow!]

Tis a fact that most females in the military eh want no part of combat.

I purposefully left out the problems Mango Chow iterated because that opens a whole new can of worms.  But there is ample evidence that mixing women and men tends to affect readiness.  Not to mention the fact that during the history of Israel women were especially targeted dr=uring wars and the men went out their way to protect them putting the mission in danger.  What happens to women POW's?  Raped?  Impregnated?  Supposed they are mothers?

Children born in captivity?

Look how long the occupation of Iraq and more so Afghanistan is/was!

In my opinion once you have male warriors, it is unconscionable to place women in combat roles!

And let the women have to sign up for selective service too.

Many will say it i i=ok, many will say it is not...if you have ever been in a combat zone you want MEN around you,,,not women..believe that!

Pentagon full ah shit and if Barack is behind this, it is definitely one issue I am against him on.....

[Jah Gol]

That study of 318 female Marines found that, on average, they could perform 1.63 pull-ups. More than 21 percent performed at least three, and 37 percent performed at least three when lower-body movement — a banned practice frequently known as “kip” — was allowed.

This is hard for me to believe, 1.63 ?

[D.H.W]

They have to get them women who does do them Crossfit games on tv lol. Them woman fit.

[truetrini]

That study of 318 female Marines found that, on average, they could perform 1.63 pull-ups. More than 21 percent performed at least three, and 37 percent performed at least three when lower-body movement — a banned practice frequently known as “kip” — was allowed.

This is hard for me to believe, 1.63 ?

Guess is just the average.

[truetrini]

Women soldiers from the civil war.


Frances Clayton


Frances Clayton

[truetrini]

[D.H.W]

Mikhailovna Pavlichenko



July 12, 1916 – October 10, 1974) was a Soviet sniper during World War II. Credited with 309 kills, she is regarded as the most successful female sniper in history.[1][2]

[truetrini]

Mikhailovna Pavlichenko



July 12, 1916 – October 10, 1974) was a Soviet sniper during World War II. Credited with 309 kills, she is regarded as the most successful female sniper in history.[1][2]

Deadly woman.

[Bakes]

Now that you mouth-breathers had allyuh say.  Man talking all kinda shit talk about how women on the frontlines affects readiness... allyuh feel this is something new, that women are deployed in combat zones?  Since the war in Iraq has begun 152 women have been killed in combat and another 800 injured.  Women have been in combat long time... this only makes it official.  Mango Chow talking as though he's a military veteran... well if man like he could serve on he period why can't women?

If I sounding like a 'fool' for saying there is no basis for continuing the archaic ban on women serving in combat jobs... then so too is the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because is them the recommendation coming from.  I suppose some nobody ass-scratcher like Mango Chow know better than the JCS command.  The article Jah Gol posted also means very little, as he himself concedes, it is anecdotal... because HER body broke down, that doesn't mean that every woman's body will break down.  All of her athletic achievements mean very little... do we even know if there was not some latent injury arising out of her field hockey or whatever it was she played in college that contributed to her body breaking down?

She talks about how she not seeing any current enlisted women pushing for this... she really think that enlisted women would look to rock the boat by actively campaigning for policy change while on duty?  That's like saying, "we didn't see any straight soldiers protesting against don't ask, don't tell... so that means everybody was in favor of repeal."  Or "we don't see any current enlisted women pushing for better protections against sexual assault... so female soldiers must enjoy getting raped." 

And this is just politics by Obama either, that is just silly nonsense which betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue.  In order to get promoted to certain high-level command positions you have to have served in jobs typically defined as combat jobs.  Right now, because they are defined as combat jobs, women cannot serve in those positions.  The result is that there is de facto sexual discrimination preventing women from advancing into command positions.  You jokers seriously think enlisted women happy with that glass ceiling in place?

Somehow the Israelis have figured out how to deploy women in combat roles without affecting readiness... except fuh trutrini mentioning some 'nansi story about male soldiers having to cover for females... as though those isolated examples (IF true) is somehow representative of the performance of women in the IDF.  Men have been covering for other men who too fat, too slow or too inept since man fighting war... yet all men are given the opportunity to serve and if they fail they fail.  Women are asking for the same... and the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of gender equality in military academies when it struck down VMI's ban on women back in 1997 (I think it was).  This is far removed from serving in combat of course, but the same excuses were used, women can't meet fitness standards, will slow down the platoon, will damage morale etc.  The court struck down the gender ban, and the same was getting ready to happen to the military, all they needed was the for somebody to sue.  The gov't just taking front, especially when there remains no good reason for the ban... women already serving in combat roles, just without recognition.

[Bakes]

Tell Tammy Duckworth and Tulsi Gabbard that women can't or don't belong in combat.  Tell it to these current female combat veterans: http://nyti.ms/10XlFvV

[truetrini]

MOST US  FEMALE CASUALTITIES came at base camps, scurrying for bunkers as mortar rounds rain down. Many others have been attacked in supply convoys.

American Female Casualties of Wars

World War I: At least 359 servicewomen died, mostly from influenza and vehicle and aircraft accidents.

World War II: 543 died, mostly from vehicle and aircraft accidents. Sixteen Army nurses died from enemy fire.

Korean War: 17 died, mostly from vehicle or aircraft accidents.

Vietnam War: 8 died, one from hostile fire, one suicide, and the rest from vehicle and aircraft accidents.

Gulf War (Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm): 16 died, mostly from vehicle and aircraft accidents and hostile fire.

Iraq war: 52 have died from hostile fire, and 378 have been wounded in action.

SOURCES: Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation; Defense Department.




~~~~~~~~~~~~No way no how is pitting women against men a level playing field.

Now let me give some personal ecperiences.

I have no doubt that a woman can pull a trigger as well as any man!

BUT...that is not all fighting entails.

We had to travel inside amphibious assault vehicles, designed to hold about 15 men, but becasue of isses with mainteance and supply as many as 25-30 get squeezed inside these vehicles.  Man sitting on man lap jam up together....SOme times we move through the desert for 2-3 days without stopping or getting out...guess how man take a piss and a shit?  Yuh could see women doing that?

Man was taking a shit literaly in another man face, we were so crammed.   Yuh was holding MRE bag as receptacles.

I don't know if you ever had to wear a MOP suit (Chemical and biological protective suit), but wearing that is not easy with ruber boots pulled over yuh regualr desert bots.   Sweat for days..all yuh socks soaked in the salt!   Talk about stink smelling.  Notice I eh mention a shower yet eh.  That is because sometimes for a week or three yuh cyar take any!!!  Yuh see women in dem conditions?

You feel women in them situtaions and conditions will not affect readiness?

Combat eh simply making a patrol, searching people or pulling a trigger here and there and returning to a base camp for a meal and relief from duty.

What happens in a hand to hand situation?   Woemn versus men?  Hardly level playing filed there.

Israel work out their issues by placing women in "combat roles" is certain areas that are not as hazardous as others.

How de hell they going to have women in sustained combat roles is beyond me.   Little privacy, cramped quarters, no toilet, no bathroom, dey go stoop down and take a shit in front the men?

Iraq and AFghanistan are not classic combat situations, we have people lurking around corners looking to kill so off course the women got exposed.

Again is only a few clamouring for these so-called combat roles, I already mentioned that very few even aplly for psoitions that are open now!

Physically they just cannot make the grade..well except in the movies.

[truetrini]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/opinion/boykin-women-in-combat/index.html

Interesting article/opinion:

Women in combat a dangerous experiment

By Jerry Boykin, Special to CNN
updated 10:35 AM EST, Sat January 26, 2013

From left, Marines Sgt. Sheena Adams and Lance Cpl. Kristi Baker and Navy Hospital Corpsman Shannon Crowley work with a Female Engagement Team in Afghanistan in November 2010.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin: Allowing women to fill combat roles is a deeply flawed idea

He says women already serve ably without being placed in infantry, Special Forces

He says move an untenable social experiment that will affect effectiveness of ground forces

Boykin: Congress should form committee to examine impact of this decision on the ground

Editor's note: Lt. Gen.(Ret.) Jerry Boykin, is executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He served in the U.S. Army for 36 years, is an original member of the Delta Force and former commander of the Green Berets. He formerly served as the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.

(CNN) -- On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the Obama administration would allow women to be placed in positions that will expose them more directly to fighting with enemy ground forces. It is said that this will allow women to fill hundreds of thousands of combat roles from which they are currently excluded. Substantively, this is a poor idea. Furthermore, the decision-making process used to bring this change about is deeply flawed.

America's ongoing war against terror-supporting states and terror networks, commenced after 9/11, has seen an increased combat role for women in the U.S. armed forces. According to recent news accounts, more than 800 have been wounded and more than 130 have died. Clearly, women have fought honorably, bravely and with great distinction.

The greater inclusion of women has allowed our armed forces to tap into an enormous pool of talent and character.

And as the casualty figures above indicate, the current posture of the U.S. armed forces is not one in which women are leading cloistered, sheltered lives. They are often exposed to great danger. So, what is it then that President Obama and Panetta are doing?

Under the policy, women may end up being placed in infantry and Special Forces battalions and other front line combat units. To doubt the wisdom of this action does not reflect on the courage or abilities of female service members. But the step crosses a line worthy of greater deliberation and public debate.


The proof that this decision is ideologically and not militarily based is its very sweeping nature.

It appears that the people who did this are engaged in a vast social experiment in which hundreds of thousands of men and women will be the guinea pigs. We are now testing a hypothesis that may impair the military effectiveness of our ground forces.

The slots that may be opened are in our infantry and Special Forces units. The purpose of such units is to directly and physically engage enemy forces. This can often involve personal, hand-to-hand combat in which women will now have to fight men.

These units can often be deployed in prolonged operations that can last for months. The physical toll is constant and wearing. During operations of this kind there is typically no access to a base of operations or facilities. Consequently, living conditions can be abysmal and base.

There is routinely no privacy or ability to maintain personal hygiene for extended periods. Soldiers and Marines have to relieve themselves within sight of others.

Think back to those scenes of combat in Vietnam, the Pacific in World War II, or the frozen mountains of Korea. It isn't pretty, and the same is happening now in Afghanistan.

This combat environment -- now containing males and females -- will place a tremendous burden on combat commanders. Not only will they have to maintain their focus on defeating the enemy in battle, they will have to do so in an environment that combines life-threatening danger with underlying sexual tensions.

This is a lot to ask of the young leaders, both men and women, who will have to juggle the need to join and separate the sexes within the context of quickly developing and deadly situations.

Is the experiment worth placing this burden on small unit leaders? I think it is asking too much.

Something as momentous as this should be endorsed by the Congress of the United States. Ideas like these have been percolating within corners of the Defense Department for years waiting to be unleashed.

One study by the Congressional Research Service recommended that "women should be excluded from direct land combat units and positions." Now, ideologues within the bureaucracy have prevailed, but a volunteer force has to maintain its legitimacy with the wider public. That is why the Constitution gives the Congress the power to shape and structure the military.

I worry about the women who are currently in the military. They have to know that the lines keeping them from infantry and Special Forces battalions will get blurrier and blurrier.

What protections will they have against being thrown into front-line infantry units as organizational dividers soften and expectations change? Very little protection, I am afraid.

Will they leave the military? This policy change may have the ironic effect of forcing women to reconsider their place in the armed services. If true, that would be tragic.

Congress should examine what the Department of Defense is doing here -- really. The Congress must do some hard, nonideological work and assess job categories and physical requirements. Perhaps a special committee could be formed whose members actually served in the infantry and Special Forces.

If it will not reverse the policy, then Congress needs to put in place a comprehensive, nonpoliticized system that will track the physical effects of these changes on women. The data needs to be made public, so there can be a fair, scientific assessment of this great experiment.

President Obama and Panetta have their agenda of change and transformation. The American public, however, should not sit back and leave the brave members of our armed forces susceptible to the whims of ideology. Men and women can serve together in the armed forces productively, but that service needs to be prudently structured in a manner that reflects the differences between the sexes and the power of their attractions.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

[Bakes]

Dread you talking so much shit it hard to really figure out where to start. Most of what you saying is a bunch ah stereotypical nonsense, 'bout if I see a woman handling marching without taking ah shit and dis and dat... and if they could survive without showering fuh three days.  First off, how many men in "combat roles" ever find deyself having to march 3 days without taking a shit... mind you this is a definition that is broader than actively being engaged in combat.  Tell Shoshana Johnson (the first black woman POW) about having to go three days without taking a shower... or about how she would automatically get rape.  Note she was a cook and had to grab rifle when they get ambush, get captured and eventually rescued... but she gets no credit for having been in combat.  Army medics on the frontline, your ass getting credit for combat duty, but the woman next to you doing the same damn thing can't?

And then yuh come back with more 'nansi stories about IDF women getting put in "less hazardous" combat roles... despite the Israeli Supreme Court ban on just that kind of discriminatory assignment.  Whey yuh find that... the same place yuh find de one about man having tuh rescue dem?

Same thing with this talk about most women get kill running from bombs.  Yuh have cite or source fuh dat?  Note what I said again eh... 152 women get killed in combat, sniper fire, IEDs, bombings, ambushes etc.  in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 10 years.  Nobody eh talking about influenza during World War I.  In that same period over 800 more get injured in battle... how much ah dem was studying they hair and how fresh dey cyat smelling when bullet was passing and they bleeding right next to their male counterparts?

The hardest thing you seem to be able to grasp is the word OPPORTUNITY... they they not able then they not able.  Everything you've said is predicated on archaic, patriarchal stereotypes about women.  I personally know women who will not only beat your ass, but hand it to you in hand to hand combat.  Again... try telling Tammy Duckworth that she not capable of serving a combat mission.

[Bakes]

Editor's note: Lt. Gen.(Ret.) Jerry Boykin, is executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He served in the U.S. Army for 36 years, is an original member of the Delta Force and former commander of the Green Berets. He formerly served as the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.

From Wikipedia:

The Family Research Council (FRC) is an American conservative Christian group and lobbying organization formed in the United States in 1981 by James Dobson. It was incorporated in 1983.[2] In the late 1980s, the FRC officially became a division of Dobson's main organization, Focus on the Family, but after an administrative separation, the FRC became an independent entity in 1992. Tony Perkins is the current president.

James Dobson:

James Clayton "Jim" Dobson, Jr. (born April 21, 1936) is an American evangelical Christian author, psychologist, and founder in 1977 of Focus on the Family (FOTF), which he led until 2003. In the 1980s he was ranked as one of the most influential spokesmen for conservative social positions in American public life.[1] Although never an ordained minister, he was called "the nation's most influential evangelical leader" by Time while Slate portrayed him as a successor to evangelical leaders Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson.[2][3]

Yuh expect Rev. Bubba Flavell top henchman to say anything other than women shouldn't be in combat roles?  To them women should be home baking pies and knitting sweaters.