Developing: Bridge Collapses Near Seattle…Unknown Injuries…See the Photos

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Government

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Lifts Military Ban on Women in Combat

Jan. 23, 2013 3:18pm Madeleine Morgenstern

Lt. Colleen Farrell, U.S. Marine, with the Female Engagement Team, 1st Battalion 8th Marines, Regimental Combat Team II stands in formation during a ceremony for the 235th birthday of the Marines at Camp Delaram in Helmand province, Afghanistan on Nov. 10, 2010. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military’s ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

A senior military official says the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army’s Delta Force, may take longer.

The official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15. The announcement on Panetta’s decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Panetta’s move expands the Pentagon’s action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached – but not formally assigned – to units on the front lines.

Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel.

This post has been updated.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (154)

whater39
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 11:31pm
WOW the sexism.

Many countries have women infantry. Except for carrying gear, it’s a total non-issue. Majority of combat is ranged. Even if it gets hand-to-hand, the female soliders are trained & have meele weapons.

Stupid comments about rapes in the military. Well… get those clowns out of the military anyways. The rapists should be in jail, not military.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TO_THE_LOST
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 11:20pm
I agree that there are many positions in the military for women but front lines are not one of them This is taking it way too far. YOU ARE NOT A MAN! I believe in equal pay and opportunity for women but would not take a job offered to me just because I was a woman, or one where I was expected to pull a 200 pound man (with my gear and his gear) out of a combat zone under enemy fire. Come on…Really? What happens when you get captured? RAPE. Use your brain and quit pretending your a man. Augh….so embarrassing for real women.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TASS50
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 10:01pm
Comments about rape, I don’t think a rapist would do that when a woman is carrying a loaded M4 or other type weapon.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Metallicat
  Posted on January 23, 2013 at 11:07pm
  I think when outnumbered by enemy troops,most would rather surrender and submit to whatever punishment they must endure to live. That seems to be the historical case thus far with women PoWs,but the ones who come home after being repeatedly raped arent held up by the media as war heroes and examples patriotism. They are kept out of the public eye.
  
  Report this comment
hugo65hsv
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 9:36pm
For the past forty years Feminism in practice has been about additional protection under the law, taxpayer benefits, affirmative actions, educational benefits.. All the good stuff with none of the bad and the responsibility that comes along with equality.. So now they have the opportunity to volunteer to join the battle at the front lines.. If I understand all this correctly this is voluntary.. Statistics show that in the private sector with the thousand of dangerous high paying jobs available woman freely choose not to apply secure and do those types jobs.. Men still do them.. This is the real core of the wage disparity issue, men will simple place themselves in danger for the money.. So what makes anyone think woman will be volunteering in any appreciable numbers for dangerous jobs in the military, when the vast majority of woman in the private sector play it safe.. I say it’s a first step to real equality instead of this phony equality mantra of these past several decades.. Real equality is you get drafted and you have to go no choice..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Foundingfollower
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 9:01pm
As a retired infantryman I can only recall the posters we had in our barracks that had a CIB over this saying – No amount of regulation or legislation will make a 90 pound woman do anything with a 110 pound ruck except sit on it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TASS50
  Posted on January 23, 2013 at 9:52pm
  I agree I am a female that just retired and I stated I don’t think you will see females interested in this. Some don’t have it in them. It’s this administration that forces everything down and I forsee alot of commanders leaving, retiring. We already have problems with oversexed Generals.
  
  Report this comment
brtmchl30
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 8:35pm
@barber. I was just thinking the same thing but couldnt remember that journalist’s name. Correct me if im wrong but didnt international news agencies pull or try to pull all female journalists out of those regions because of the risks they faced for just being women? Even when showing support for their ” peaceful ” displays of pro democracy rallies

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
truthnstuff
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 8:19pm
Another move by the regime to destroy the military. They want to turn the military into an emotional unit they can more easily control. It will be much easier to concoct a scenario which has the military fire on citizens when martial law is dictated.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Metallicat
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:54pm
Whatever happened to protecting women and children from the horrors of war? I have trouble sending nurturing lifegivers into combat to be life takers. this will only dehumanize us,and emasculate men to further the feminazi agenda,that is just a PC liberal BS lie. What a great dream this country used to be. just like women police,for every female cop,you’ll need two males to assist her to do her duty and back her up. I saw a female cop trying to arrest a guy on the street one day and she was hanging onto the guy trying to whack him in the groin with her baton,screaming for backup on her radio. two males cops eventually showed up to make the arrest. this will be our new combat effectiveness.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Jinglebob
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:51pm
Sorry to say this is a huge mistake. My comments are based upon thirty-five years in the U. S. Army, both active and reserve the last ten as a First Sgt. There are many, most if fact, fine Female soldiers serving but the bottom line is that there is a difference between men and women, regardless of what the Liberals want you to believe. Trust me, women for the most part are not strong enought, tought enought, dirty and mean enough to be in a Combat or Combat support units. Fighting is just a part of it, a small part at that. Soldering is extreme hard and dirty work. The pure physical work being in an Armor and Artillery unit often due in men much less women. The work load must be shared, if forty percent of a company is women, the bulk of the heavy work has to fall on the men. This slows up movement, stress the men, wears them out faster, effects morale .Putting up GP Mediums, carry 155 rounds, swabbing bores, fixing a thrown track etc. etc. they can’t handle it without taking two women to do one man’s pgysical work. Then there is the fact that men will protect their buddies, especially if they were women, there by putting themselves in more danger. Hell, young officers, NCO’s and eighteen, nineteen your old have enough on their plates now without adding this burden.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Metallicat
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:37pm
I wonder now that this is done,will women no longer be given officer rank just for joining the USMC,because now they can serve combat roles?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Metallicat
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:30pm
I have met women I would be comfortable going hunting or into combat with,but they are the exception,not the rule. Most American women are too materialistic and like their comforts too much to live in the filth of combat. Just because they can give birth doesnt make them tougher,they are designed to do that. This PC bullcrap is really out of hand. Of course the MSM will bury the horror stories this will create,and focus only on those women who succeed,even though the horror stories will outnumber the stories evoking images of sunshine and lollipops and everything “right” in the world.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
blackfeather
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:27pm
excellent…let ‘em know what it’s like to be up there where the lead flies….where the men have had to go.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:16pm
The problem with the “promotion” theory of justifying this policy is that politicians have been known to participate in what is called “force reduction” treaties, so your precious promotion is neither guaranteed neither does it merit consulting with members of Congress to argue that point for women in combat?

I would love to be part of the crowd that loves the Democrats, but when I see stuff like this, I can’t imagine being one?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
garbagecanlogic
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:15pm
This is going to cause so much dissention in the ranks! What foolish guy is going on a missioin with a woman who cannot match him in anything except picking out curtains for a bedroom?

The U.N. Out Of The U.S.
Praise Be To Obama. Psalm 109:8

The U.S. Out Of The U.N.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Memegalt
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:07pm
This makes me sick to my stomach. What have we become?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
JJ0369
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:04pm
oh what the ****, is this what our country has come to.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Metallicat
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:04pm
I think its coming folks. they needed to mulitply their forces before using them against the American people.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ranepowel
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 6:01pm
I love how some people on here are talking about how instances of rape will increase…as if that’s the women’s FAULT. No. If/when rape happens it’s not the government’s fault, and it’s certainly not the women’s fault. It’s the rapist’s fault. The rapists is always to blame, and the people on here who are supposedly ‘saving women from the rape’ aren’t doing anyone a favor, because they are acting as if the sec. of defense would be to blame for one evil male soldier raping an innocent woman.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- brtmchl30
  Posted on January 23, 2013 at 6:23pm
  I have written about rape in a comment , but have never implied rape from our own men.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on January 23, 2013 at 6:55pm
  BRT: RENE just is pulling a Hillary : distraction and dodge…
  
  Report this comment
- Metallicat
  Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:15pm
  Throwing them into frontline combat against foreign armies of men only increases the probability that they will be raped in combat. Which only compromises our combat units on the front lines and the emotional and mental damage done to those in combat. War isnt glorious. Men have trouble coping with the things they experience in combat,women will only suffer worse.
  
  Report this comment
NiModo
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 5:51pm
Nothing screams POLITICS more than changing policy on your way out the door. hmmmmm?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 5:49pm
Military draft? Women serving in combat in a military draft? Only Congress should determine that, not some Presidential appointee?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 5:45pm
Congress should stop this immediately and prevent women from serving in combat. The military is not an organization where we entitle people to get promoted. The military is not where you go to get a retirement. Considering that the military refuses people under the age of 35 to serve (unless waivered, etc.) I find it hard to find a reason not to limit the role of women from serving in combat.

If women can serve, why not fat people? Why not old people? Why add the most distracting thing you can put in front of a young male, a female that is showering the atmosphere with their scent that is designed to do only one thing, act like viagra, serve next your young stud muffins, why not some old geizer? Why not grandpa and his false teeth, you don’t trust him with an M1, but you can trust some Arab in Egypt?

Congress knows better than this? If you are the mayor real ville, this is not real life, this is attempting to distort reality? Maybe instead of worrying about women serving in combat, we ensure that a soldier that is issued a weapon, is also issued ammunition and is authorized to carry that ammunition as long as he has the weapon, and if the foreign locals don’t like that idea, don’t send your soldiers over there?

When was the last time America lost a war, and we need women in combat now? Congress? Hello, is anyone home?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
U4eeeahhh
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 5:44pm
First, should anyone attempt to reinstate the draft a male only arrangement would be struck down in a matter of a few days. No possible way you could get that through without a fairly equitable distribution of risk.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Southernsoul
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 5:40pm
I don’t want to hear a single women’s group crying when the first woman is captured and raped.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
trueamerican40
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 5:35pm
Good. Gonna need as much as you can when China and Russia and Iran decide to make their move. Liberals are not going to love the world they are creating. America should repent and turn to God but I have a feeling she won’t.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Shamrock241
  Posted on January 23, 2013 at 6:31pm
  On who’s authority do you have it that Russia as you say will make their move?
  
  Report this comment
brtmchl30
Posted on January 23, 2013 at 5:31pm
IEnemies already know the loyalties of an American soldier. Our honor has been used against us by our enemies. For instance, in Somalia they knew to try and bring down a helicopter. Basically baiting our soldiers. They know that we would rush to protect those who have fallen, and force a firefight. How long do you think it will take for our enemies ( who do not follow any rules of combat, not to mention that women in that part of the world are dispised, raped, and stoned to death for any reason,) for them to specifically target woman in combat. Nationaly we aren’t prepared for watching our mother’s and daughter’s coming home in bodybags. In the field how much more likely are men willing to break under interrogation when some jihadist in the name of his god is raping and torturing his fellow sister in arms. On the other hand, under this administration we didn’t exactly rush in to help our own in Benghazi, never leave a man behind was abandoned for political reasons but I wouldn’t count out the loyalties of our fighting men and woman to abandon their principles like our leaders do. After all those brave men from the annex sacrificed themselves for the lives of those at the consulate. Against specific orders.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- brtmchl30
  Posted on January 23, 2013 at 5:50pm
  Women are hated and disrespected in that part of the world. Woman troops are a slap in the face to these horrible men. Woman in combat will be specifically targeted and be punished severly if captured. I will never discredit a person whose answers the call. Patriots are patriots, whether man, woman, or gay. That being said, are we prepared for all of the seperate needs. Our debt is rediculous and defense spending will only go up. Are we prepared to build special quarters everywher for the housing of a small amount of combat ready women, who will need to be with their unit. There are a number of issues that will arrive socially also. Why was this done so quickly and quietly?
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on January 23, 2013 at 7:02pm
  BRT: Agree. Remember the treatment of the American female “journalist ” in Tahir Square ?! And can you image the Lefty MSM Beast Horror and Amazement an American female soldier gets captured ?! There goes the Blind Sheik home…as fast as those 2009 Russian spies were sent !! ( The escapades of this Administration will produce books for years )
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.