Women in Combat positions
Dirtie_Frank
Posts: 1,348
http://www.jdnews.com/news/military/law ... cy-1.55984
WASHINGTON — Taliban fighters didn’t discriminate when they wounded then-Capt. Mary Jennings of the California Air National Guard. She was the enemy, so they shot at her as well as the men flying beside her.
Now a major, and known as Mary Jennings Hegar, the decorated helicopter pilot and other female service members are opening a new front in the challenge to the military’s long-standing exclusion of women from ground combat positions. In a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday, the women say eliminating the policy is long overdue.
“This policy is outdated, and it does not match the reality of modern war,” American Civil Liberties Union senior staff attorney Ariela Migdal said in a telephone news conference.
The lawsuit filed by the ACLU in U.S. District Court in San Francisco is the second this year challenging the military’s female ground-combat exclusion policy. Last May, a University of Virginia Law School team filed the first suit in federal court in Washington.
The lawsuits take similar approaches, calling the military policy a violation of constitutional guarantees of equal protection and a hindrance to promotion potential. Both also face similar challenges. In particular, courts often are loath to interfere with military practices.
“The ground combat assignment policy is founded on (the Defense Department’s) assessment, based on its military expertise, of what is necessary to preserve force readiness and military effectiveness,” Justice Department attorneys wrote in response to the Washington lawsuit, adding that “this assessment is entitled to substantial deference.”
The military’s policy regarding women in combat has been a work in progress since 1948, when Congress first passed a law making women a permanent — though explicitly limited — part of the U.S. armed services. By 1994, after the first Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon narrowed the female exclusion to cover units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground. A brigade is usually composed of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.
Last February, the Pentagon further refined the exclusion to allow women in certain occupations to serve in battalion-level units, which typically have 500 to 600 soldiers. Individual branches also are permitted to exclude women from their special operations forces, such as the Navy SEALs.
“The elimination of gender-restricted assignment policies requires deliberate action,” the Pentagon’s February report to Congress cautioned. “There are serious practical barriers, which require time to resolve.”
In past cases, the Supreme Court has said sex discrimination is permitted only if it’s supported by an “exceedingly persuasive” justification that’s substantially related to “important governmental objectives.”
Combat, though, doesn’t always respect the bureaucratic or legal niceties.
More than 280,000 women have served in the military during the past decade, while the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been fought. More than 130 have died and more than 800 have been wounded, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Hegar came under fire on July 29, 2009, while co-piloting a HH-60G Pave Hawk search-and-rescue helicopter near Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan. Assigned to the 129th Rescue Squadron, usually based at Moffett Field in the San Francisco Bay Area, Hegar was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor, as well as the Purple Heart, for her actions that day in rescuing three wounded U.S. soldiers.
“My story is not exceptional or uncommon,” Hegar said Tuesday. “The vast majority of men I have served with in combat didn’t care if I was a woman. They cared only about whether I could do the job.”
Even with the ground combat ban in place, Hegar noted that she ended up engaging the enemy from the ground for about 20 minutes after her helicopter crashed. Hegar, now 36, said if the policy were lifted she could apply for a ground combat position, which would help her career. Without that potential, she said, she’s transitioning out of the California Air National Guard into the Reserves.
Another woman joining the case, Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt of the Army Reserves, served in Afghanistan and Iraq, where she was wounded in August 2007 by a roadside bomb while on a reconstruction mission. Hunt, now 28, says the ground combat exclusion policy has barred her from the leadership schools and experiences usually needed for promotion into higher ranks.
Various military branches differ in their placement of women. While 99 percent of Air Force positions are open to women, according to the Defense Department, only 66 percent of Army positions and 68 percent of Marine Corps positions are. Women can qualify for 80 percent of Navy positions.
All told, women constitute about 14.5 percent of the 1.4 million active-duty personnel.
“There’s definitely a feeling among servicewomen that the Pentagon’s progress is not enough,” Migdal said.
Last year, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., authored a measure to remove the combat exclusion policy legislatively, but the bill attracted no co-sponsors and didn’t pass.
WASHINGTON — Taliban fighters didn’t discriminate when they wounded then-Capt. Mary Jennings of the California Air National Guard. She was the enemy, so they shot at her as well as the men flying beside her.
Now a major, and known as Mary Jennings Hegar, the decorated helicopter pilot and other female service members are opening a new front in the challenge to the military’s long-standing exclusion of women from ground combat positions. In a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday, the women say eliminating the policy is long overdue.
“This policy is outdated, and it does not match the reality of modern war,” American Civil Liberties Union senior staff attorney Ariela Migdal said in a telephone news conference.
The lawsuit filed by the ACLU in U.S. District Court in San Francisco is the second this year challenging the military’s female ground-combat exclusion policy. Last May, a University of Virginia Law School team filed the first suit in federal court in Washington.
The lawsuits take similar approaches, calling the military policy a violation of constitutional guarantees of equal protection and a hindrance to promotion potential. Both also face similar challenges. In particular, courts often are loath to interfere with military practices.
“The ground combat assignment policy is founded on (the Defense Department’s) assessment, based on its military expertise, of what is necessary to preserve force readiness and military effectiveness,” Justice Department attorneys wrote in response to the Washington lawsuit, adding that “this assessment is entitled to substantial deference.”
The military’s policy regarding women in combat has been a work in progress since 1948, when Congress first passed a law making women a permanent — though explicitly limited — part of the U.S. armed services. By 1994, after the first Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon narrowed the female exclusion to cover units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground. A brigade is usually composed of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.
Last February, the Pentagon further refined the exclusion to allow women in certain occupations to serve in battalion-level units, which typically have 500 to 600 soldiers. Individual branches also are permitted to exclude women from their special operations forces, such as the Navy SEALs.
“The elimination of gender-restricted assignment policies requires deliberate action,” the Pentagon’s February report to Congress cautioned. “There are serious practical barriers, which require time to resolve.”
In past cases, the Supreme Court has said sex discrimination is permitted only if it’s supported by an “exceedingly persuasive” justification that’s substantially related to “important governmental objectives.”
Combat, though, doesn’t always respect the bureaucratic or legal niceties.
More than 280,000 women have served in the military during the past decade, while the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been fought. More than 130 have died and more than 800 have been wounded, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Hegar came under fire on July 29, 2009, while co-piloting a HH-60G Pave Hawk search-and-rescue helicopter near Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan. Assigned to the 129th Rescue Squadron, usually based at Moffett Field in the San Francisco Bay Area, Hegar was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor, as well as the Purple Heart, for her actions that day in rescuing three wounded U.S. soldiers.
“My story is not exceptional or uncommon,” Hegar said Tuesday. “The vast majority of men I have served with in combat didn’t care if I was a woman. They cared only about whether I could do the job.”
Even with the ground combat ban in place, Hegar noted that she ended up engaging the enemy from the ground for about 20 minutes after her helicopter crashed. Hegar, now 36, said if the policy were lifted she could apply for a ground combat position, which would help her career. Without that potential, she said, she’s transitioning out of the California Air National Guard into the Reserves.
Another woman joining the case, Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt of the Army Reserves, served in Afghanistan and Iraq, where she was wounded in August 2007 by a roadside bomb while on a reconstruction mission. Hunt, now 28, says the ground combat exclusion policy has barred her from the leadership schools and experiences usually needed for promotion into higher ranks.
Various military branches differ in their placement of women. While 99 percent of Air Force positions are open to women, according to the Defense Department, only 66 percent of Army positions and 68 percent of Marine Corps positions are. Women can qualify for 80 percent of Navy positions.
All told, women constitute about 14.5 percent of the 1.4 million active-duty personnel.
“There’s definitely a feeling among servicewomen that the Pentagon’s progress is not enough,” Migdal said.
Last year, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., authored a measure to remove the combat exclusion policy legislatively, but the bill attracted no co-sponsors and didn’t pass.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I agree with both points.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
me three...
Hail, Hail!!!
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
i recently applied for a position with the australian army in an administrative capacity. they rang me and asked was i aware that weapons training was involved? i admitted that it never crossed my mind. i was assured that i wasnt the only one to whom that wasnt apparent. though i admitted now it was mentioned it did make some sorta sense to me. i was asked was weapons training something i was willing to undertake. i said no and was thanked for my time. so i think yeah even if joining the armed forces wasnt originally what you wanted to be involved in when you 'grew up', if the thought of joining the armed forces has crossed your mind and you view it as a secure job the only thing missing is the will to do the job.and if you have that then why not. obviously i have no desire to handle firearms if it can be avoided and tbh the last thing you want is a weapon in my hands.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i miss the days when the king would ride off into battle with his army.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If that were the case, our President would be an MMA trainned, fully qualified M-60 gunner.
Hail, Hail!!!
and im sure itd make him think before he committed other peoples children to war.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Nope. We (voters) would still be the ones who put him in office. Meet President Mike Tyson.
Hail, Hail!!!
:fp: :nono: :fp:
You know what would have worked better?
A very big can of 'Raid'.
Hail, Hail!!!
Women still can't serve in the front line infantry in Australia. They can serve just about anywhere else and I don't think it will be too before they can.
I can't speak for myself on this point as I have never served but my father who served two tours in Vietnam with the Marines opposed this idea. Not from the stand point that woman couldn't do the required work (and actually supported the idea if women were separate from men) but always went back to the comradery issue. His group were guys he slept with, ate with, pissed in front of, shit in front of, etc. He used to liken it to sports where boys and girls play together] but he would mention there were separate locker rooms, separate bathrooms, etc...all of which do not exist in war. War is no place to have to worry about "boundaries" between the sexes.
I think there is something to be said for that... I also think that there might be some issue with some guys carrying out their duties fully. A lot of time we are talking about teenagers or very young adults. Hell, as General Patraeus showed us, even smart, mature guys think with their dick sometimes, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a 19 year old guy to maybe get distracted for a minute, making sure a female soldier that he sorta likes is safe, when his focus should be on whatever task is at hand.
I support the idea, but there are some reservations as well. I'm glad that I don't have to make the decision
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
You guys sound straight out of the Dark Ages.
No offense, but until a combat veteran posts in this thread about their own experiences, I will take the comments of somebody's dad or uncle or neighbor who fought in Vietnam 40+ years ago with numerous grains of salt.
Many of the arguments raised were also brought up when the armed forces were racially integrated and more recently with allowing gays to serve openly. The argument about "where will they shower" that always comes up kinda makes me laugh. Like taking showers is a big part of military service.
And the sexual temptation suggestion. . . . I'm sure women look really hot wearing camo and kevlar while carrying a 50 lb. pack, but if somebody wants to get laid, aren't they going to take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself, whether it's a willing comrade or the local whorehouse?
I tend to think that in combat, your biggest concern is that your buddies around you can do their job and are looking out for you. Something tells me that when the bullets are flying you won't be terribly concerned about the other person's race, sexual orientation, or gender.
and maybe thats where the strength lies. women are killer organisers imho. we know how to get mutiple things done cause for a great many of us this is our daily lives. we are the brains and men are the brawn. i have zero problem with this.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What gentleman would not be distracted by a woman fighting along side him that reminds him of his daughter,mother,wife or girlfriend he hasn't seen in months or maybe a year??? Do you think he would be able to focus or would he always have an eye on her? Would he make a tactical mistake to help a woman? Would he be able to handle seeing a woman who resembles someone he loves taken captive, tortured, killed or raped in front of him?
War is fought with much more than guns.
And I guess until you fight in a combat situation I will take your comments with a grain of salt.