You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Considering that 3 of the 4 are in the reserves, they should know that the Army Reserves is a combat "support", which means there are not any combat units, ie infantry, artillery, etc. First step would be join the active duty and then meet the same standards as men, be an equal means meeting the same standard as men, not adjusting the curve just so you can make it.
Your first mission is to remove all reasonable assurances to the US citizens that our highly trained killing force can actually do the job. This isn't Angelina Joelie in tomb raider...the opposition is real. Face it, when push comes to shove, or strangle comes to slitting someones throat...who would you rather have fighting with you?
Are they NUTS? They don't have a clue do they? I heard horror stories from my uncles who served in WWII and war is hell, death, friends blown apart, a nightmare - they want that? Get a clue.
These women just elected the current commander-in-chief. Let them pay the price for their actions just like the men have to. I would not only lift the ban, I would make it mandatory.
I served in combat as a Marine in Vietnam, and from experience I know there are tough men and not so tough men. In the 44 years since my combat tour I have met tough and not so tough women. I know a lot of women I would rather have my back then some of the men I know. Let them serve, but in doing so, can't let it be optional. If you draw a combat MOS, you fight & die with the rest of us. Let the four ladies fight with line companies in Afghanistan starting now.
I think this is great. There are plenty of women who could kick most guys' butts! And, Weaponry & battle have changed with technology.
I served for three years in a combat MOS. It is honorable that these women want to serve their country in a combat position, beyond the honorable way they are already serving. It is good to keep in mind there are plenty of Non-Combat unit men and women in the military and they should be honored for their contributions and receive similar promotion opportunities, and at times these non-combat soldiers do end up in combat situations. There are a couple of reasons the Combat jobs do promote faster per my opinion, (more combat soldiers die or are injured in combat resulting in open positions, more combat soldiers do not re-enlist as these jobs are not always glamorous and they are very high risk again resulting in more openings. Ultimately, the military must make the decision based on what is best for the mission and for maintaining staff levels. Any person, Man, Woman, (Gay or straight)that wants to get on the front lines and risk taking a bullet or worse should be allowed to in my opinion as long as they are fit for service in this regard. I wonder where this would take draft eligibility for those combat positions in the future, and if that is something these women are pushing for?
The phrase "barriers would not disrupt the cohesion" keeps popping up with changes to Pentagon rules. I'm guessing that like all the other changes, there would be no disruption.
I was operating under the assumption that women could serve in combat. There doesn't seem to be any reason they couldn't, and as bill9844 pointed out, not all men serve very well in combat situations. We have an all-volunteer military, so those going in know there are serious risks up front. Let them serve equally and be treated equally. We will be better for it.
dentester, you know who they voted for? wow, I wish I had your abilities...were you one of those corrupt election officials I've heard about?
Wait until we get the first reports of Sharia-compliant interrogation of American women POWs. Feminists won't know where to direct their rage. CBS reporter Lara Logan can attest to this concern.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks