This policy is long overdue. Women in our military are competent, strong and very capable of performing the same duties as men in most areas of the armed forces. This policy, not only, serves to enhance the promotions of women to higher rankage in more career fields within our military, but also, serves to make our forces stronger by finally allowing women to make a greater contribution to the mission at hand. It's the right thing to do. It's fair. It's about time! Besides, as women hold up half the sky anyway, doesn't it make sense they should stand on equal footing with man?

What I don't understand it women were allow to be in Combat Zones. Doing other functions which would put them directly in harms way. But not in a combat unit. My Brother while in Iraq was stationed in a very viotile area, shelled almost nightly in 2003-2004 with women in his unit. But they were not allowed to be in the actual combat units. Makes perfect sense. This was well overdue.

I would invite any of you idiots that believe women should be in combat to go with them and retrieve their bodies when they are scattered in bits and pieces. Maybe should send your female loved ones to war.

This is being done in the name of Political Correctness. Economic Equality, Marriage Equality and now Combat Equality. The good of the mission and the good of the military is not being considered here. I served with women for many years but not when I was in Combat Arms. There was a reason and it wasn't to deny women the opportunity, but to consider who is better made for the job. Combat is difficult enough without mixing the sexes in the austere conditions that can exist. And if you were in the military you know the difference between Combat Units, Combat Support Units and Combat Service Support Units. It AIN'T the same. I think this will prove to be folly. No disrespect to women, but some "change" isn't better just because its "change". Just a retired solider's opinion.

Thousands of years of human history have clearly illustrated which sex is made to do the protecting, and which is to be protected. This is not based on tradition, nor chauvinism. It's based on extremely obvious facts.

I respect women in all ways imaginable. In fact, most of my favorite people are women. However, this new policy is the answer to a question that nobody asked, or at least asked by a very very few with a specific ax to grind.

Would be unlikely that any women who can pass the requirements for combat will be recognized as a female by the enemy or by anyone else!

I believe that women should be allowed to participate fully. They should also be subject to the same training standards and requirements for fitness as any other soldiers. There are always going to be people that think we are not strong enough, or that we are the weaker link, but if we just keep doing what we are doing eventually they will learn by our example that they are wrong!

I should have mentioned men as well,when I served,if you couldn't carry the load,you didn't go.period,although I didn't see to many 120 lb men in any of the infantry units I was in.BTW that was back in the day they made solders out of you,or you went home,you didn't call home crying to mama that,that mean old sargeant was mean to you and called you a nasty name.

What is so bad is that if a woman is captured the first part of the torture for her will most certainly be rape. The daily beatings however will be just like her male counterparts. Maybe even more cruel, because the enemy in the Middle East hates women. I realize there are women that can pass the PT test easily, but it will be enormously difficult for them in the field...Social engineering at it's worse. I cannot support it.

I say yes to this but the military need to eliminated all gender testing differences and all held to the same standards as when I was in the air force which requires more mental power then physical power women has much lower testing standards which was fine for most air force jobs but downright dangerous for some jobs that I could not even do

EQUAL RIGHTS..YAH BABY

Equal rights are long overdue for women in our society. After all, women make up more than half our population. Why are they still treated as second class citizens? Many are still paid less than a male counterpart for the same job, we tell them what they can and can not do with their bodies and even though more women are now representing us in the House and Senate, their gender is proportionally still under represented.

Like I have said before,to me it doesn;t matter if your male or female,they should all have the same opportunity,AS LONG as you can perform the required duty.

In the military, I suggest, Victory takes a preference over equality of opportunity.. You talk about "Career Paths" , the military isn't making widgets or cellphones, the military is tasked to kill the enemy, it is a profession (soldiering) it is based on DUTY - HONOR - COUNTRY, not 401k's and corner offices. Since active conscription ended we call it " A Professional Army". and have lured poor kids by raising pay. I believe in a draft, all should serve, and not to compete with the private sector for "career paths" but to put the issues of America's wars at every kitchen table in the country. Presently the President has a private Army of "volunteers" that he can send wherever - whenever, while most of American families have no stake in the conflict. "Volunteers" lured by competetive pay and "career paths".are doing the fighting. By the way, women aren't required to register with the Selective Service, as are all males over 18, I imagine that should change as a consequence of this new equality. If you read my last you would realize I am advocating a real world training experiment with women in extended combat simulation, in all environments, side by side with male counterparts, before implementation of a policy mandating women in front line infantry squads. It only make sense.

The sacredness of being a women is nothing but a cloud of religious male chauvinist driven hog wash. The military is the perfect example of an equalizer. If you can't do a job you don't get to do it, whether you are red, green, white, female or male. Period, end of story. That being said, there are plenty of qualified women that can throw a 250 lb whatever over their shoulder and carry it/her/him out of a jungle or up a mountain if need be. On a funny side note, maybe, just maybe this will give the naysayers to women being in the military, more hesitance to speed off to war before thinking it through. I doubt it though, if they didn't care about sending our boys to die it's not a far reach to send our girls but who knows maybe it will slow 'em down a bit. And yes I'm a VET, and yes I have a daughter. She is welcome to follow whatever path she wants.

Michael D: What you are saying is women should be able to join an Infantry Rifle Squad in order to punch their ticket for advancement, because men have a career advantage due to having a combat resume. That kind of pc crap will ruin our combat readiness, First, I do believe that officers in combat units advance ahead of other infantry officers that have not been in combat. And that is appropriate, no one wants a battalion commander that has no combat experience, planning and leading them in a combat mission. However, most career soldiers are not in an infantry MOS, for them, men and women already are on a level field (experience wise) on their career path. Deployment to a combat or hostile fire zone is the punch needed in their ticket, not infantry combat Only women bent on a Combat Arms career would benefit from the new policy. For them I am advocating a serious training program in simulated combat environment, with men, over an extended period in diverse venues (Panama, Alaska, Mississippi) with deprivations, weather seasons, etc., before deployment. No special treatment, no excuses.

Michael D: I served with some pretty lousy 2d Lt's that were just trying get their combat ticket punched for career advancement and but for a few experienced E-5's and E-6's Those 2d Lt's would have never made it home and they would have gotten a few draftees killed along with them. My reference to affirmative action was to the inevitable choice of lessening standards to make certain that more than just some women actually made it into combat arms. Working with the military do you honestly believe that after the President and Sec'y DOD permit women in combat units that the Brass aren't going to fall over themselves to roll out the first GI Jane. And don't you think that the standards for qualifying are going to suffer in order to prevent only men from meeting the criteria. Sure one or two exceptional women may successfully meet today's standards for infantry training but the "equal opportunity" and "Career Opporunity" protagonists will not be happy with a couple she/males, they will dilute the effectivness of military to make a social statement. If the military doesn't meet a satisfactory level of women in combat arms requirements will change. I don';t think there is a prohibition against equal opportunity for women in the NFL but I don't think we'll see any make a squad, because those dudes are huge and because winning is the goal. Well in the US military winning should be the goal not advancing social agendas.

Michael D: Your position presumes (naively, I believe) that the standards will not be lowered to accommodate the social agenda. That is our true departure. Failure will not be tolerated the bar will be adjusted (lower). Can the Williams sisters beat the best men one on one, can the best WNBA team compete in the NBA or would the WNBA disappear if women were limited to trying to make NBA teams or would the NBA accommodate women with rule changes ? Unequal opportunity for career advancement is being touted as the main reason women should have the chance to compete for Combat Arms MOS. The present lack of combat arms positions for women cannot now be used to deny them promotions in Field Grade or to General, due to that lack of availability. However, once they have the right to apply for combat arms training,they can then be denied promotion for failure to make it through what has been designed as a male program. They are then in a position to demand standards be set at an achievable level.for both genders. This policy actually makes it less likely they will advance their Career Path on a fair playing field unless the rules are modified. You say "If you fail, you fail, period." Politics will see that that period will never end that sentence. You are the one taking a harsh stance, you are saying to women 'play the game our way or shut up, it's a man's world live up to the standard that we set' and you can move ahead. That is not going to be acceptable.

Michael: So you'll allow women to "compete" provided they can do so within rules designed for the very fit male and you honestly believe that will end the debate. The majority of career military females will not want to compete or will be physically unable but those few that do so succesfully will enhance their careers at the expense of those "normal" women. That will not be tolerated and the high physical standards will be compromised in order to achieve a "fair" career path result. Mission performance will suffer.

Michael: You miss the point, if the Williams sisters can compete against men - then why have women's tennis, if some WNBA players could make NBA teams why have an WNBA - the women who can't compete with men will suffer. That was the purpose of the analogy - those career women in the military not able to compete with men for limited combat arms positions will suffer in their careers, as the women tennis players and the average WNBA player, when required to perform at the established high acheiving male level in combat arms. As a result the performance requirments will be lowered to counter that consequence. The military's mission has nothing to do with seat sales or the consumer, as you eluded, the military must win, we must kill more of them then they kill of us, we must be a bigger threat to their survival then they are to ours. Sports analogies aside, it is not a game. Nor is it a societal gender inequality fix. I believe in equal rights for all regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or age, but I'm not permitted to reenlist due to my age, there is a presumption by the military that I can't physically perform. No tryout, no physical, I'm already trained and experienced, I keep myself fit, my eyesight is 20/20, but I don't even get a look. Fair ? Would you advocate that presumption be changed ? People are living longer. In balance with women, I wouldn't suddenly find myself pregnant and unable to fulfill the requirements of the job I'm trained to perform.

Michael: I guess we agree except for who sets that standard, I believe the existing standards should remain. I also believe those standards, having been designed for a mans physical ability (strength) and endurance will be difficult for all but few exceptional women to acheive. As a consequence I believe the military will revise the standards, hopefully with an eye to not jeopardizing mission capability. If only a few elite women make it into combat arms, it (the new policy) will negatively impact most women in their military career path.

I was a 110 pound 6.1 when I joined and barely passed the Physical standard for a man in the air force due to the push up requirement but went on to carry a top secret SIOP 7 clearance as I worked with looking glass which lucky was never used as if it did the PC game fallout would be very real. But for standards I holy support not cutting them so that is insane for those jobs that that require Heavy lifting or endurance as much as I believe if a woman can pass the test she should be able to hold any job a man could

Bob Doyle: You are wrong - it is not the present reality- Presently, Women are in harms way as a consequence of serving in a non-combat unit in a combat or hostile fire environment. The new policy puts women in the role of combat arms with the specific job of intentionally seeking out the enemy to kill him/her. That requires a specific set of physical attributes God gave men. In the event women do begin to enter those units it will only be because the rigorous training methods will be modified to allow enough of them to serve in order to achieve career path punchlist items are satisified and there can no longer be a charge that women don't advance as equally as men because combat arms counts hgh in promotion consideration. The mission will suffer.

well Mr Ruggles, go tell Tammy Duckworth your version. In the day we were trained to be 11-B first, all else secondary. There are now two wars in which women shoulder the load, and the old timey frontlines rhetoric was proven to only exist in the minds of older war tales. Viet Nam & Korea proved the days of fixed barriers changed. The last ten years shows the use of I.E.D.s can happen anywhere. Whenever we as a nation dismiss the sexist rhetoric our outcomes are progressive.

I don't know Tammy but I do know if she went to AIT after Basic and graduated as 11B10, she was assigned eventually to further training in commo or some other non combat arms MOS before she was operational. Women have different physical abilities then men and that won't change by allowing them to compete on a level
playing field with men at todays rigorous standards. The bar will necessarily be lowered and missions will suffer. If she had been in my Ft. Dix AIT Infantry cycle in the summer of 1967 she would been recycled. Being in a hostile zone, although dangerous and brave women serve there with distinction, it is not the same as an infantry squad sent out for days in the field to hunt and kill the enemy. All the PC, "everybody deserves a chance crap", won't change that

Bob Doyle: Your link confirms my comments - a helo pilot and commo person in a combat zone, though in harms way, are not the same as combat infantry squad missions in which the participants purposely search for and engage the enemy to kill them, carrying heavy gear loads and remaining in the field for extended periods. The only way women consistently meet the requirements of the training for the infantry MOS is to lower the training's physical standards.