Forgive me if I'm mistaken but wouldn't this just be a continuation of existing policy. Women are currently barred from ground combat duty and flying fighters in combat but they can serve at or near the front line in support positions.

Right?

This would bar them from those positions.

Women in the military would be barred from serving in direct ground combat roles, under a House bill that sets Defense Department policy and spending plans for the upcoming budget year...

The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat.
...
The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground"

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.
...

The issue arose last week, when Republicans, at the behest of Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-California, added a provision that would have banned women from being assigned to "forward support companies."

Those units provide infantry, armor and artillery units with equipment, ammunition, maintenance and other supplies in combat zones. The Army started allowing women to staff such support posts last year and says it is complying with the 1994 policy.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.
...

The issue arose last week, when Republicans, at the behest of Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-California, added a provision that would have banned women from being assigned to "forward support companies."

WASHINGTON, May 19 - Women may continue to serve in Army units supporting ground combat forces under legislation approved early Thursday by the House Armed Services Committee, but the Pentagon would need Congressional approval to open any additional jobs to women in combat zones.

The compromise amendment gave a partial victory to both sides in a debate over the role of women in Iraq and other war zones.

The amendment's sponsor stripped language from the bill that would have barred women from jobs that provide a variety of supply, logistical and other support to frontline troops. There are now about 22,000 positions open to women in those "forward support companies."

my old drill sgt once told me the reason women aren't allowed in a combat mos. i'll tell you if you want to know.

Dayum. The womin folks have no buzness on the fightin feeld. Theyum shud bin up in the kichin makin foods for them soljers.

take it as you will but it made sense to me:
he said the bottom line reason was hygiene.

with regard to the mindset idea, what i understood was that it was not womens ability to be tough but rather the mindset of the men that they need to protect and guard the women from certain things.

with regard to the mindset idea, what i understood was that it was not womens ability to be tough but rather the mindset of the men that they need to protect and guard the women from certain things. this mindset of protection hampers their ability to carry out their mission or make tactically wise decisions. i'll ask them down at Bragg, i'm suppose to train there for about 12 weeks or so starting in just a few days. gettin ready for our rotation downrange in '07. 8^)

My only comment is and has always been that they should establish minimum standards for combat duty and ANYONE who meets them can serve. Shoot a minimum score. Be able to drag a 200lb. injured combatant 50 yrds unassisted. Carry X amount for X miles in a backpack.
Actually take the time and effort to establish a baseline of physical and mental ability that is considered the minimum for combat and anyone who passes that gets a gun.

amen.

if you can hack it, you should be allowed wherever anyone else who can hack it would go.
if not, you should not be allowed to be there and endanger your comrades.

there is absolutely no reason why they should lower physical requirements for women to be in military/combat positions. its not even just about equality, but more importantly about keeping all our enlisted as safe as possible.


Me, personally... if this policy were enacted I cant see that I'd ever qualify to be in a combat position. pullups, situps, marksmanship, fine. But I dont ever see myself being able to drag a 200 lb. injured combatant anywhere. I took firefighting classes for a while, on the way to certification, and ran into the 200lb "body" situation. I couldnt move mine, and rightfully failed.

That's what I've heard and read as well (one of the reasons.)

The other, and I don't necessarily agree with it, is one of mindset: Women *as a generality* tend to be more nurturing than men, and some studies have shown this to manifest itself as a lower level of aggressiveness.

I am not sure if I buy this argument, but it's one reason the big green machine is reluctant to allow women in front line, primary combat roles. Or, so sayeth a half-dozen retired military folks I've talked too over the years.