"U.S. Navy is planning to open its elite SEAL teams to women." Topic

"The U.S. Navy is planning to open its elite SEAL teams to women who can pass the grueling training regimen, the service's top officer said Tuesday, August 18, 2015, in an exclusive interview. Adm. Jon Greenert said he and the head of Naval Special Warfare Command, Rear Adm. Brian Losey, believe that if women can pass the legendary six-month Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, they should be allowed to serve.

The move to integrate the military's most storied commando units comes the day after news broke that two women had passed the Army's arduous Ranger course. Nineteen women began the course, which has about a 45 percent passing rate.

The Navy has said it is on track to open all ratings to women by next year, but this is the first indication that the SEALs are leaning toward accepting candidates. Greenert didn't specify a timeline for allowing women candidates into BUD/S training…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Are there not still laws prohibiting women in combat positions?

They're ignored all the time, so…..

Two women are about to get Ranger certified, though they won't be part of the 75th.

Watch the Demi Moore movie 'GI Jane.'

There hasn't been a law prohibiting the combat assignment of women since 1993. Even then the law only prohibited the service of women on ships and aircraft with a combat mission.

There have been DoD and service branch policies restricting the positions women could hold based on the combat mission of a unit, but those restrictions have gradually been lifted to the point that not many remain.

PDF link

Seems too many won't be satisfied until and female soldier, sailor, etc. is captured by Deash, AQ, etc. … And then many will be horrified, etc., by what happens to her on a YouTube video … Then they will all ask how could this happen ? How could we let this happen ? TMP link

I am just wondering changing the female helo pilot in the Ranger program with Durant in the Somalia debacle,

Legion 4,

Because when men get captured, it is all tea and crumpets, right? Male POWs never get abused, right? So that's a good reason not to let women who want to, to serve their country. Russian women defended the motherland in WW2, and the Germans did horrible things to them if captured, but now we can see the reality in our own bedrooms, so, better keep those women safe and "protect" them!!

Space Ghost,

There's a world of difference between defending your country to the last bullet in total industrial scale warfare compared to sending professional volunteer troops to fight abroad.
The strange thing in this long running argument is that 99% of professional infantry soldiers don't want to see it happen, yet 99% of professional civilians do. Wonder who knows best?

Has already happened to that American female aid worker who reportedly ISIS' Baghdadi, and I suspect others severely abused, before they killed her.

Because when men get captured, it is all tea and crumpets, right? Male POWs never get abused, right? So that's a good reason not to let women who want to, to serve their country. Russian women defended the motherland in WW2, and the Germans did horrible things to them if captured, but now we can see the reality in our own bedrooms, so, better keep those women safe and "protect" them!!

Really Space Ghost ? I didn't know that !?!? Geez !!! Read Foxweasle's post … I know this may offend some, but both he and I are Vets. I served in 4 Infantry Bns, and commanded a Mech Co.,'79-'90 … so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about ? War, [especially now,] has always been horrific … You may want to rethink what you are talking about. And review the atrocities, war crimes, etc., Deash and our other adversaries have done to their captives. Why let anyone who does not have to be exposed to such barbarity if they don't have to ? Do you have a daughter that you'd want to join a combat Infantry or Tank unit ? As I said, on the thread I posted above … if, GOD forbid, a US/Western female soldier is captured by Deash, AQ, etc. … Don't want to watch that YouTube video … She'll be lucky if she dies while trying to escape … Why risk this type of horror, if it can be avoided ?

We see women as needing to be protected and saved, but what if they don't want to be?

Because until women are in the majority in an infantry unit, they will just be a liability and distraction from the main effort. Harsh as that sounds its reality, the British government have already done a study into how many women are expected to join infantry units should it be allowed. The numbers are tiny, so why degrade a units efficiency and therefore the nation's security just to please a few with loud voices. It's a tired old saying, but, the army serves society it doesn't reflect it.

Thank you foxweasel … you once again nailed it …

Seems too many won't be satisfied until and female soldier, sailor, etc. is captured by Deash, AQ, etc. … And then many will be horrified, etc., by what happens to her on a YouTube video … Then they will all ask how could this happen ? How could we let this happen ?

To be fair, severe abuses of female prisoners of war have already occured in the past. In the First Gulf War, one female soldier was captured by the Iraqis and raped (Rhonda Cornum), and in the Second, another one was captured and probably sexually assaulted (Jessica Lynch). So, it's not like one can keep this from happening if no women serve in SOF.

I agree Cherno, however, too many people are looking at this from an Afghanistan/Iraq perspective. Plenty of women have returned fire and in a couple of cases had close in fights, but that was in a combat support role where things had gone wrong. The argument here is for women to be in units (on an equal footing with men) who's primary role is to close with and destroy the enemy, close in brutal general war (trench clearing, hand to hand etc) not glorified COIN fighting disgruntled Afghan farmers with one hand tied behind our backs.
As for the IDF, I'm not sure but I think the Israelis have abandoned the idea of mixed DCC units.

Again I agree foxweasel ….

Plenty of women have returned fire and in a couple of cases had close in fights, but that was in a combat support role where things had gone wrong. The argument here is for women to be in units (on an equal footing with men) who's primary role is to close with and destroy the enemy, close in brutal general war (trench clearing, hand to hand etc)

Spot on … That is the bottom line in my former Grunt's mind. Lynch (Supply Clerk), Hester(MP), etc. were not in units that were to be in direct combat with the enemy. Like Infantrymen, or Tankers. Big difference. The Infantryman's primary mission is to kill, capture, and destroy enemy personnel and equipment. They are organized, armed, trained, etc. to do that. Not like supply clerks, MPs, etc. … Who do fill very important roles in the military. But no where near the role of Infantrymen and Tankers, etc. … Infantrymen and Tankers go in harms way, they look for it, seek and destroy. So the chance of them becoming POWs is high. Only being surpassed as we see in recent conflicts by pilots. But there again, the females pilots that have a direct combat mission are few compared to males. We see few Infantrymen or Tankers POWs as in saw Vietnam and other recent conflicts. Is that many of those type soldiers, unlike the Iraqis, ANA, etc., fight and kill the enemy or be killed …

I agree that putting them in combat units or even SOF outfits heightens the chance of being captured etc. considerably, but the point is that this is already a thing and especially with modern, low-intensity conflicts we see today, there are no clear frontlines and thus things like the ambush on Lynch's supply convoy can and will happen. Cornum was riding in a helicopter to rescue a downed pilot so that's not exactly a safe job out of the enemy's reach either.

Being captured isn't the issue here, it's the Dismounted Close Combat role. War fighting. Continuous brutal fighting, the core infantry role. Think in the worst case fighting the Japanese on Guadalcanal or more modern times clearing Mount Tumbledown in the Falklands. Women would be a liability, more importantly they wouldn't want to do it.

Women would be a liability

If you mean that male soldiers will go into "protector mode" once they see a female soldier lying wounded in no man's land, then that is not the female's fault. It might be a liability, but gender equality would have to be weighed against the risk that this liability poses. No clear answer there I think.

more importantly they wouldn't want to do it.

I don't see how this is more important since this is a generalization and in the end up to each potential candidate, not something that should (or could) influence the decision on wether to include women in high-risk combat roles.

There have been women soldiers throughout history and across cultures.

I see no problem with allowing women who wish to join, and who meet the criteria for doing so, to do so.

Consider the YPJ, for a good example of women involved in heavy frontline fighting.

Being captured isn't the issue here, it's the Dismounted Close Combat role. War fighting. Continuous brutal fighting, the core infantry role. Think in the worst case fighting the Japanese on Guadalcanal or more modern times clearing Mount Tumbledown in the Falklands. Women would be a liability, more importantly they wouldn't want to do it.

Again I agree …

If you mean that male soldiers will go into "protector mode" once they see a female soldier lying wounded in no man's land,

Regardless … in many situations that would happen anyway … But no need to make it worse, IMO …

Consider the YPJ, for a good example of women involved in heavy frontline fighting.

I believe foxweasal already addressed this … and I agree …

There's a world of difference between defending your country to the last bullet in total industrial scale warfare compared to sending professional volunteer troops to fight abroad.

This is getting a bit like the Life of Brian scene "we agree with your right to have babies Reg".
I'm an infantry soldier and I don't know anyone who wants this, but hey what do we know.

LOL !!!! Very true … very true … There is a new dramatic TV series coming on the US "idiot box" about a female Navy Seal. So the media is already for it … It's on my NOT Watch list !

link

"Gentlemen," she said, "I am 25 years old and I have killed 309 fascist occupants by now. Don't you think, gentlemen, that you have been hiding behind my back for too long?"

How many fascists have you lot killed?

Weasel, look 18 posts ago about women fighting for their country, look through the last few posts about this argument, it's about women in the DCC role not the combat support role (FOOs/FACs, fighter pilots and arguably snipers)

No, I haven't killed any fascists, I joined up 40 years too late. I do have my JTAC logbook with operational drops in it though, how many fascists have you killed?

I joined up 40 years too late.

Me too … but my Daddy whacked some Nazis/Krauts …

That lady killed more people than every person in this thread combined (I am willing to bet).
She was hardly the only either.

If she was alive today, would you tell her to her face that women just aren't cut out for combat?

If someone can do the job and is qualified to do the job, let them do the job.
If that offends those with tender sensibilities, I imagine they'll get over it quick enough.

You are obviously choosing to ignore my posts.
Yes, I would tell her to her face, sniping isn't close quarter battle. Why are you so bothered by this, if you are an infantry soldier then it affects you a lot. If you aren't, it doesn't affect you at all. That's all I have to say on this subject from now on.