Newsmax is reporting that Panetta made the announcement yesterday, saying the Joint Chiefs of Staff are recommending an end to the 1994 rule that prohibits women from being assigned to small ground combat units. This would allow women to be deployed in front-line positions, including elite commando jobs.
Panetta is giving military services until May 15 to submit their initial implementation plans. Some front-line positions may open to women as early as this year while assessments for others, such as special forces like Navy SEALS and Delta Force may take longer. The various branches will have until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions should remain closed to women.
"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," a senior defense official told reporters on condition of anonymity.
Some lawmakers are praising the move. "After a decade of critical military service in hostile environments, women have demonstrated a wide range of capabilities in combat operations and we welcome this review," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon of California.
Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a former Army helicopter pilot who lost both of her legs fighting in Iraq, called the move “long overdue.”
“This is a win for our nation," Duckworth, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told Politico. "This is a win for our military — that the talents of all of these women are going to be able to be used by our nation to protect and defend this great democracy.”
Others are concerned about the ability of women to perform in some of these positions and whether or not this will leave them vulnerable.
Retired U.S. Army Gen. Paul E. Vallely told Newsmax women don't have the upper body strength needed to function in some special combat positions.
“The upper-body strength that it takes to carry the weapons and gear — and especially on long hikes they’d have” prevents them from serving these operations effectively," said Vallely, who retired from the Army in 1993 as Deputy Commanding General, Pacific. “It’s been proven that women just don’t develop that upper-body strength.”
Some female soldiers, like Victoria Rivers, whose expertise as a machine gunner won her the opportunity to go on missions with Special Forces in the Iraq conflict, agrees.
She told CBS that working side by side with Special Forces was "pretty cool" but added, "There are jobs that women can't do physically because they just don't have the strength, the physical strength, to do it."
At present, women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active duty military personnel, and they are already serving in combat zones as helicopter pilots, medics, military police, in military intelligence and other support groups.
Others question the motive behind the sudden change, which was abruptly announced yesterday while the country's attention was riveted upon Hillary Clinton's testimony on the Hill about the Benghazi terrorist attack.
"The question here is whether this change will actually make our military better at operating in combat and killing the enemy, since that will be their job too. What needs to be explained is how this decision, when all is said and done, increases combat effectiveness rather than being a move done for political purposes -- which is what this looks like," Hunter said.
"Lifting the ban is contrary to law and the wishes of the American people," said Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative activist and constitutional lawyer. "It is an embarrassment to the country."
Others argue that modern conflicts are unlike the trench warfare of the past such as were seen in World War II, but is more a battle against insurgencies.
Thus far, more than 130 women have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, comprising about two percent of U.S. deaths in those conflicts.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
