Defense Secretary Carter Announces Women Will Now Be Included In all Aspects of Front Line Military Combat…

Several combat roles have restricted women in the U.S. Military for numerous years.  The 1994 Combat Exclusion Policy has kept female soldiers from being infantry, artillery, combat engineers, etc., but that’s about to change.   President Obama supports and advocates for the position as it was announced today.

However, Secretary Carter never stated or clarified equality also means women would be forced to register for selective service (draft); and/or if women would be forced into combat infantry roles as their male counterparts have been.  Thirty percent of infantry positions are filled by command determination and not volunteers…

WASHINGTON DC – […]  Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced today that all combat positions will now be open to women, saying, “When I became secretary of defense, I made a commitment to building America’s force of the future. In the 21st century that requires drawing strength from the broadest possible pool of talent. This includes women.”

According to The New York Times, the Marines had been opposed to this decision and put out a study back in September saying that gender-integrated units were not as effective as all-male units.

But Carter overruled their objection and clarified today that units would likely remain largely male and there would be “no quotas or perception thereof.”  (read more)


Full Video and Presser:

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, media bias, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Defense Secretary Carter Announces Women Will Now Be Included In all Aspects of Front Line Military Combat…

  1. ediegrey says:

    Donald Trump cannot become president soon enough. Another Obama hack – this can only weaken our military.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. USA Patriot says:

    Bet it will be women’s choice to go into combat but not for men — liberal equality.

    Liked by 8 people

    • shiloh1973 says:

      So, you think men don’t have a choice? I served(a woman) from 1973 to 1978 in the communications field. I was out numbered 99 to one at my base in Germany. That was during the Viet Nam era. What were these men doing?


      • Racine Thyme says:

        Hi Shiloh. I served from 1974 to 1980, also in the communications field. I bet we have common stories.

        I loved my time in the service. I was young and gungho and thought women should be able to go wherever men go. Now with age and a bit of wisdom, I can unequivocally say that putting women in combat is the dumbest decision ever. It will weaken the military in myriad ways, many of which have not even been thought of yet.

        Liked by 7 people

        • Judgy says:

          Was it Rick Santorum who had said that men would likely take crazy risks because they would want to PROTECT their female counterparts? My only experience with the military is having performed in USO/ MWR tours (y’all are the BEST, most gracious, audiences EVER), so I don’t know squat, but I was intrigued by that notion.

          Thank you for your service!!


          • robotech master says:

            Studies out of israel have shown that is the likely outcome. It makes logical sense… unlike stalin army which often killed its own troops and commanded via fear. The US Military is a mercenary army. It fights for what it believes in. That for many is the protection of the weak and family. Many US soldiers already tend to take a great amount of risk to save fellow soldiers. Adding women into the mix will only compound this issue.

            The other issue is that we haven’t been in a real war in awhile. Next to WW2 or even Korea iraq is a peacekeeping op outside the first 30 days or so. We move infantry by vehicle while in real wars thats generally not possible. This is because you often don’t own the skies and its risky to use vehicles to move people around the front.

            In every combat scenario where you have true warfare women lag behind. If they really want to put women in combat so badly their is all kinds of support options they could do that doesn’t require the hardcore strength that infantry requires. Women can pick up infantry guard duty positions such as tower guards, entrance control point guards(aka gate guards) and a bunch of other stuff that doesn’t require them to do the heavy lifting that they fail at. Doing these jobs would free up normal infantry units to do what they are good at.

            The goal of adding women in these positions isn’t to make the US Military stronger its nothing more then a combo of fantasy propaganda and weakening the military overall.


        • singtune says:

          Agree! Amazing what we learn with Age & a Bit of wisdom/


      • SharonKinDC says:

        The Israel study mentioned below showed women to have a vastly higher injury rate. Mostly soft tissue- knees/cartilage, etc.

        Anecdotally, I also seem to recall concerns about women getting up and over fences/walls when carrying a heavy pack. Saw this for myself on an episode of Stars Wear Stripes. It’s the upper body strength thing.

        Liked by 2 people

      • don welch says:

        shiloh1973….women don’t have to sign up for selective service. men do. no choice. women believe in choice as long as it’s ‘their choice. women have rights men have responsibilities.


    • haypa2haypa2 says:

      That had better be the choice. I wouldn’t want my son’s team members to have a 5’2′, 112 lb girl in it on the battlefield. My 5’10’, 145 lb son had enough trouble dragging around a machinegun on the battlefields of Iraq and he had been training since age 15 to get into the Marines.


  3. myopiafree says:

    I was in the National Guard and Army reserve for six years. Was Carter ever in the military? Does he have a clue about any of this. Please – not in the Marines, and never in combat.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Martin says:

      No. Just another former professor as if we need any more of those.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I think he was a defense department bureaucrat, and an academic before that.

      Obama loves civilians as direct managers of the military. This is to prevent any possibility of a high-level coup. The communists learned a lot by studying the fall of Salvador Allende, and they were completely prepared for all the things that stopped Allende’s Marxist takeover.

      Liked by 5 people

  4. ajmacdonaldjr says:

    Women Will Likely Have to Register for the Draft, Army Secretary Says | via @Militarydotcom

    Liked by 1 person

    • canadacan says:

      I’m betting against it if I’m wrong I’m wrong but I am betting against it


    • F.D.R. in Hell says:

      Trust me…women WILL BE required to register with Selective Service.
      (12/3/15 – Print/Save)

      Liked by 2 people

      • Judgy says:

        Well, good then. Can’t WAIT to hear the hypocritical screeches of outrage.

        It might be similar to Carly Fiorina having insisted until she was blue in the face that she could “keep up w/ the big boys”, and making fun of Hillary for constantly reminding us that she’s a WOMAN………then snarkily hissing that “I heard you, Donald–and every woman in America heard you”, that same week at the debate.

        Way to present women as rational paragons of logic, totally NOT driven by FEELINGS over FACTS!! Kudos!

        I can’t STAND women who pull the Female Card! They make us much more irreverent, lighthearted, manly-men-lovin’, and man-APPRECIATING broads look REALLY bad!!

        Liked by 3 people

      • jello333 says:

        I’ve always been opposed to the draft… still am. But I’ve also always believed that IF we’re gonna have one, it needs to be across the board. No exception (except for extreme physical or mental conditions), no exception for social status*, and no exception for sex.

        (* the one which would guarantee we would NOT have a draft)

        Liked by 1 person

    • myopiafree says:

      I was “in” the service, ca 1962 – 1968, and was yes – drafted. It was a good education. But – if women demand equality, then they must also be subjected to a random draft. I do believe in that type of equality. In fact I believe in a Swiss type of “every man a soldier”, versus Obama’s confiscate all fire arms – if there is ever a choice.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Martin says:

    More social engineering going on in our military. Pathetic.

    Liked by 6 people

    • canadacan says:

      Stupid is as stupid does more liberal crap.
      Or a basic physical mental and emotional differences between men and women and women are not suited for combat.
      Yes I am a big fan of the Kurdish women and
      Their fight against ISIS.
      However integrated combat units only weakens the military.
      I can’t wait until President Trump takes


      • canadacan says:

        As a woman I am totally disgusted

        Liked by 1 person

        • Judgy says:

          You’re not alone, Can!

          Why is it that they on the rabid Left CONSTANTLY jeer at, and accuse US for supposedly being so backwards, & “anti-science”? (And why is THAT? Just cuz we disagree w/ mendacious Dear Leader when he DECREES that “The Science Is Settled”??). Yet, on an issue like this, where even a retarded hamster could SEE that THERE ARE DEFINITE DIFFERENCES, their supposed respect for Science goes right out the window (and into the totally uncooperative, not-warming-as-previously-threatened air?).

          I also am repulsed by people—feminazis, the Gamer Gate gals, illegal aliens, teen-“trans”-boys-who-refuse-ANY-compromise—who psychotically feel a need to BARGE into places created for, or by, others, simply because they apparently didn’t get the attention they craved somewhere ELSE in life! Try therapy, you malcontents–not everyone gets to inflict their unresolved issues-from-childhood on the rest of the Free World, even though you may be confused b/c your Anointed One does just that every damn DAY!!

          Will the military be setting up ample “Safe Spaces” on the combat front lines too??

          Liked by 1 person

        • me, also. It is a really stupid idea.


  6. Piper says:

    Thank heavens I’m too old to be drafted and have no children!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Doodahdaze says:

      I am old too but still hold a Masters rating MMO. So I am subject still. For another 2 years.


      • Judgy says:

        Doo……’re not a CHICK, are you?? I coulda sworn I’ve heard people here call you “Howie”…….?

        (Doesn’t really matter…..HERE, I mean! You’re hilarious, either way–I’m just surprised).


    • VegasGuy says:

      LOL……I’m too old & was drafted……

      Luckily, my sons survived the Selective Service registration & are now too old to be inducted and even more luckily, there has not been a need for induction.

      But, alas, times they are a’changing & madmen are in control. Hope it never again comes to that point.


  7. Veritas says:

    No other military in the world allows women in combat units. I wonder what they know that Obama doesn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. mimbler says:

    Further lowering of standards will follow quickly, so women will be able to succeed in MOS’s requiring physical strength and endurance,

    Liked by 1 person

  9. R-C says:

    “Thirty percent of infantry positions are filled by command determination and not volunteers…:

    Hmmm…speaking as a 21-year Army veteran–Infantryman/Paratrooper having performed my duty at the squad, platoon, company and battalion level–I have to take exception to that statement, which seems akin to the archaic practice of pressing men into service as the British Navy used to do by scouring the docks and basically kidnapping men into service.

    The ‘all volunteer’ Army is more than 40 years old now.

    In my time, 100% of the ‘all volunteer Army’ had (a) volunteered for service; and (b) personally picked their Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)–ie, “Infantry”, “Armor”, “Military Police”, etc. during their induction processing. Anyone assigned to an infantry position is a graduate of infantry school. I have never had a soldier assigned to me who was not a volunteer–and in airborne units, a double volunteer (nobody is ever ordered to jump out of a plane).

    I am not aware of anyone assigned to perform infantry duty by ‘command determination’. (Support MOS personnel–ie, “Administration”, “Medical”, “Transportation”, etc, are assigned to infantry units through the normal assignments process, but they are not infantrymen, and not assigned to rifle platoons. The only time I could see that happening is when stuff really hits the fan on an operation, at which time everybody had better ruck up and move to the sound of the guns.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Col.(R) Ken says:

      As a 32 year veteran, Infantry, Cavalry, Avn and in command positions from Sq leader thru Brigade Commander. Command Determination to me means: DA Select. Brigade Commanders are selected after the Division Commander receives the DA Select list. The Division and Corp commanders confer, then select 3 choices. Same goes for Battalion Command. Now for Company Command, the Battalion/Brigade Commander look around for good qualified Captains.
      NCOs much the same down to E6. Yeah, forgot too mention my badges, I’ll just say: Airborne, ………All the Way!……..
      Started my service in the draftee Army, college, and re entered the All Volunteer Army. My best too you R-C


  10. Rebel Mope says:

    What the heck, Let them fight. They could have their very own division-The Amazon Division. They could protect the flank of the Rainbow Division. Bah.Cannon Fodder all. Just stupid.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Coast says:

      I agree….in a real war those who can fight will, and those who can’t get killed. Eventually the problem is self-solving.


      • archer52 says:

        Except it has been proven by many other examples that women in combat get men in combat killed beyond the normal numbers.

        It is in our DNA. Israel learned this lesson.

        It degrades the units, it harms the mental state of the soldiers. It hampers the effectiveness of the military. all to prove a political point.

        But here is the big point. War is bad. War kills people, cripples people, makes normal people into killers.

        Bad enough we have to send our sons and brothers and fathers. Why is it that we even think it is a good idea to send our daughters, sisters and mothers?

        This is a case of a false starting position in an argument. We are no longer arguing the stupidity of forcing women to become killers or to be killed. We except, wrongly, that women and men are equals. They are not.

        They will never be equals. It isn’t the way things are supposed to work.

        Ask yourself, would you want your daughter to get blown into pieces? If you say yes to prove a feminist/progressive political point, and you are a father- shame on you.

        Does that mean they can’t serve? Sure, but in a safer supporting, non-combat role.

        Sure, it means that can’t get to be rear admirals or generals, so what? Does the military suffer from not having a woman in charge of something? You’ve seen some of them who are in charge and what happens around them- because often they are true believers in the cause.

        So again, why do it?

        Liked by 1 person

  11. MVW says:

    Look! Squirrel!

    Liked by 2 people

  12. carolmcd says:

    Even Israel doesn’t have women in direct combat. Has this been polled? Do the American people favor this?

    Liked by 2 people

  13. jeans2nd says:

    When I was on active duty USMC the primary MOS for every male was 0311 (infantry). All others are secondary. Will this now change for Women Marines? Will AIT now be required for Women Marines? What if they washout during AIT? Same as men? Will they lower the standards so more women will make it through? Will Women Marines be given a choice to go or not? Will this requirement reduce recruiting?

    I could never ever had made it through AIT, even directly after Parris Island, and I was an honor grad, only 1 or 2 in my whole series could have. But I doubt that was ever a consideration.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. truthandjustice says:

    Afraid it’s all predictable – the evil Globalists must weaken our military as much as possible. I’m female and very patriotic but never been a “feminist” and against women in combat, etc. It’s another common sense thing – which seems to be very uncommon. So many things could be pointed out that you don’t hear of and women don’t think of. I get so frustrated with all the ones that fall for this stuff. If they really want to be of help, they could go into the medical or administrative fields. They are only being used as useful idiots by the Globalists just as the gays are in order to destroy us.
    Well, I did my part – raised two daughters and they have “done me proud” (and three sons). Thank you God!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • wondering999 says:

      and thank you, T&J, for raising five children well.


    • shiloh1973 says:

      AS a female Veteran I resent the crap out of this. They are saying the Muslim terrorists had 6,00 rounds of ammo at their house? Big figgin deal, I have twice that much and know how to use it. You want to see real mayhem? Try to take out a mother”s child and watch her go go all out ballistic on you.

      Liked by 2 people

      • seventhndr says:

        No one is saying you couldn’t fight. Its not personal. But as truthandjsutice noted, there is a lot that can go wrong. To be blunt, how long is a “fertile” woman going to go without bathing on a mission? Do you feel physical standards should be lowered? Don’t you think a 250lbs warrior has the right to be concerned whether or not those around him can bring him back to safety if he gets hurt? Is it not reasonable to consider that men have a VERY strong natural instinct to protect women that could get in the way of making hard decisions? Is it not reasonable to consider the morale of a team when a female warrior is killed or captured because with most enemies, rape is all but a given?

        I don’t doubt you could outfight many men, but I don’t that makes women in general the right decision for the frontline. Just trying to look at this objectively as a whole; not meaning to offend.


      • Col.(R) Ken says:

        Easy now, I do know that females are the real hunters and gatherers……….

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Frank O'Pinion says:

    Not now, Aston – I have a headache.


  16. Empress says:

    Because we no longer want women, wives, mothers, protective men, effective warriors and military, or a sovereign country.


  17. VegasGuy says:

    If a female can handle an M60 & above type weapon…..let em have at it. If they can handle a 50 Cal. make em Squad leader.

    On the realistic side, IMO, the natural selection process will self adjust acceptance, training parameters, fitness evaluations & the like. As was pointed out above by aother poster, the MOS classification is primarily self selected. Those that desire combat duty will, for the most part, be combat oriented individuals that already have both the inate ability & the drive & foritude to succeed in that type of role.

    The Military Acadamies have accepted females & there has been no appreciable degradation of performance criteria. Especially within the Air Force Pilot program. Either a female can meet requirements or they wash out, just llike their male counterpart.

    So, don’t offhandedly dismiss female combatants on the gender issue alone.
    I once. many years ago, wandered innocently into a club in Buffalo, NY that was named “Big Bertha’s”

    Didn’t stay long, as you might imagine……But, probably 9 out of 10 of the occupants I observed would do more than adequate in a combat role….LOL

    And that’s before formal training…..


    • Empress says:

      Women do not perform near as well as men in strength and endurance tests. Moreover, female combat readiness poses many and documented problems regarding pregnancies, childcare, and menses.

      Liked by 1 person

      • canadacan says:

        Exactly its called living in the real world


      • shiloh1973 says:

        Did you serve in the military? If not you have no idea whatsoever what we women were willing to do for our country!!!! I really need to walk away from this thread because I cannot take this BS any longer. I served my country as a woman and I would do it again. Maybe you should how many wounded warrior women warriors we have already!!!!!

        Liked by 2 people

      • VegasGuy says:

        Perhaps, but I served with many a man that was lacking in strength & endurance. Someone picks up the slack or they get moved off the frontline. That’s why there is a chain of command with competent NCO’s.

        I might agree with pregnancies & menses, but combat males would have ( and do have ) the very same childcare issues. Always have. Nothing that would pertain soley to a female combatant.

        I doubt you would see a pregnant combatant in the field & well, menses is what sick call is for.

        So while I can see your point I do not necessarily buy into it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Empress says:

          The stats are damning, and, so, not made easily available for current PC reasons.

          I was an Army wife for a decade and was privy to insider info. Women who enlist or who are commissioned in the armed forces are to be commended and can be expert in their fields and sometimes formidable in combat, but, on average, they aren’t near as strong as men and have had pregnancy rates that endanger the readiness status of forces.


          • VegasGuy says:

            “pregnancy rates that endanger the readiness status of forces.”

            No objection to females potentially (on average) might tend to have a somewhat lower stength & endurance ability. With that out of the equation, then pregnancy alone would be the main criteria to keep females out of combat duty OR out of the Military completely? Not sure I follow that line of thought.

            “Endangering the readiness status of forces”, I assume based on the knowledge you are prevey to, would have to apply across the board to all branches & all occupations within those branches, both combat & support.

            Are you saying that in endangering the readiness ability, pregnancy would be the main concern? If so, then it would have to follow that the majority of, & the importance of key placement individuals would necessarily have to be comprised primarily of females for that to have a significant effect.

            I really do not believe that to be the case.

            I am not arguing the point you make. I am though, questioning what percentage of the key current forces are comprised of by gender, that tends to have you point out that pregnancy would reduce the overall effectiveness or readiness of our military forces?

            Just curious.


            • Empress says:

              Have to say your comments here do not sound as if you’ve served in the US armed forces.

              One: troops who cannot meet the usual strength and endurance standards for combat forces do pose an existential threat to their comrades in arms and also for the mission.

              Two: Readiness status is based on the number of troops who are able to report to duty at any specific moment they are called to serve in theater or on a mission. Up to this point, and, certainly is the case still, expectant females are not considered combat-ready. Female troops and officers who are pregnant, or even who believe/ claim themselves to be, are not deployed and effectively reduce the readiness factor of their units, even though women haven’t been integrated into combat roles, yet, which would further aggravate the dilemma. Women, as a percentage of our forces, experience a fairly consistent degree of incapacity due to such issues, but it’s not politically palatable to acknowledge, even with hard numbers.

              Your statement a comment ago regarding having encountered many men in the US Armed Forces who lacked strength and endurance is too strange. PT’s have to be passed in order to stay in service. Of course, women get laxer standards than men, but all have to pass their tests on a regular basis.


              • VegasGuy says:


                Let’s get these two out of the way.

                “Have to say your comments here do not sound as if you’ve served in the US armed forces.”

                No offense taken – Actually I did. A combat (11 Bravo -light weapons Infantry) tour Viet Nam 1967. 2nd Bat. 2nd Mech Infantry – 1st Division.

                Drafted not recruited. Pretty much in the thick of it considering the time frame. Feel free to check out the unit. Quite decorated.

                “Your statement a comment ago regarding having encountered many men in the US Armed Forces who lacked strength and endurance is too strange.”

                Maybe from your current perspective of what constitutes “combat”?

                “PT’s have to be passed in order to stay in service.”

                That’s for the current Military & for those who enlisted. Really did not apply to “my” combat experience or draftees of the Viet Nam era.

                My comments too strange? Perhaps I was too generic. I was referencing my own experiences where there were men in the field that ought not have been in the field. These were first hand observations of some that simply could not adapt, that could not “cut it”, that simply had inadequate strength / stamina for the task at hand. And there were quite a few.

                It was about trudging through waist deep undergrowth for 8 – 12 hours, on alert for booby traps, ambushes, snipers, setting up a night camp, securing the perimeter, rotating guard duty which allowed for about 3 hours of sleep (many nights in the rain & mud), going out on a recon patrol, and at sunrise, packing everything up & doing it over again, & again, & again.

                Dealing with insects, snakes, biting ants & the likes. Heading for a map coordinate to await chopper drops of resupplies for fresh water, salt pills, C-Rations (ate em for a year – damn stuff was packed in 1946) dry / clean fatigues & socks, fuel for the APC’s (1000 gal gravity feed bladders – praying you don’t get attacked while refueling), ammo, constantina wire, fresh weapons. Ride shotgun for an Engineer Bat. clearing jungle. The occassional dusting of Agent Orange. Getting ambushed in a rubber plantation where you can’t meneauver the track vehicle.

                Do that for perhaps 3 weeks+ straight in the field before heading back to base camp. Not to mention the occassional track getting dislodged from your APC & having to clear a 60 X 60 area of growth to ground level just to repair it, during which time your squad was on its’ own to get it repaired & then catch up with the Co. And oh…did I mention the occassional fire fight from insergent opposing combatants? Which, BTW, usually occurred at their liking verses ours. Spontanious, intense, & lasting mere minutes (hit & run) to hours (dug in for the duration). .

                Times have changed. Been 49 years since for me. Different Military altogether. Different me too. I was given 8 weeks Basic, 8 weeks Advanced & shipped off. Yeah..we all had to at least pass PT to get through training. If not they just recycled you to go through it again. But I did not have to pass PT during my tour to stay there. I was in until either my tour was up or my time was up.

                I just had to harden myself not do anything stupid, to stay alert, watch my buddies’ backs, hope they were watching mine, stay clear of called in air support so you didn’t get killed by falling (by the hundreds) 20MM casings as F -4’s straffed the position just 100 yards ahead of you, or your called in artillery fires short rounds on your position because someone could not properly read map coordinates.

                I once read a stat that said a WW II combat infantryman, during the duration of their service, experienced on average, about 10 days of combat per year. That same stat said a Viet Nam infantryman saw 240 days of combat in a 13 month tour.

                I could go on but I think by now you get the picture. So yes, there were men that could not cope strength / endurence wise. Could a female? IMO, there would be some that would / could. It would be their choice & their resolve that would allow for that. Like I said……times have changed.

                There are plenty of “strong” capable women that IMO, are/ would be offended by the notion that they could not adequately bring themselves to be on par with the average man physically. There most certainly are such individuals. Does that require a lowering of the “bar”? Maybe to a degree for certain specialties. We have female combat pilots. I have heard that females have attained SEAL status (could be wrong but I believe I read that somewhere) . Do you think the bar was lowered for those type of roles? If not then can we make blanket statements as to gender being the defining & only accepted factor as to ability?

                When you state…..
                “Two: Readiness status is based on the number of troops who are able to report to duty at any specific moment they are called to serve in theater or on a mission. Up to this point, and, certainly is the case still, expectant females are not considered combat-ready.”

                You are correct on that specific point, as are the opinions of many other posters regarding their views of females in a combat role. Generically woman may not be the perfect candidate for any particular combat role. But that is a generic view which, IMHO, may not hold true for all woman or for all combat roles.
                When you state….”women get laxer standards than men, but all have to pass their tests on a regular basis.” I do not in any way disagree. Physical ability is paramount for many specific roles.

                But one can’t take that to the extreme of requiring a squad of perfectly matched supermen (or superwomen). There is and will be varying degrees of ability within a unit. The objective is that ALL meet a minimally acceptable, yet adequate, performance level that, while not homogeneous, still constitutes a cohesive & effective fighting unit. A unit, where each individual is assured & confident that their brother (sister) in arms will / can do the task at hand. When that is instilled from the squad level all the way to the Division level, that, IMO, constitutes combat readiness.

                My closing point is that IF there are women that can meet the challange, that can perform the role, and are willing to take on the responsibility, shouldn’t they be afforded the opportunity?

                I believe they should. I sure there are women out there that would agree. Hey, but what do I know.


                • VegasGuy says:

                  Allow me to correct myself…..I stated…..

                  “I have heard that females have attained SEAL status (could be wrong but I believe I read that somewhere) .”

                  It was 2 females that attained Ranger status & are eligible to apply for Seal training beginning 2016 if they so desire.

                  Nontheless a great accomplishment.


                • SharonKinDC says:

                  There has been some debate whether the standards for the two Ranger grads were lowered… look into it.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • VegasGuy says:


                  Yep. I did look into it. There is debate as to whether or not “certain” standards were modified for the female participants. I do know that there were originally 20 females that were reduced to just 8 after only the first 4 day assessment.

                  All of those 8 then failed the 1st phase twice. Of those, 3 were allowed to recycle to a day 1 status, essentially go through the program again. Something that, BTY, extends the entire ability / physical test by 2 additional months of rigorious exertion.

                  This option is also offered to male candidates who similarly “wash out”. But, only if they (regardless of gender) excelled in certain aspects & only fell short in another >specific< aspect that could be improved upon. Key word…improved.

                  My guess, for the female candidates, would be the PT like ability. The initial stage is rigorious PT ability and then includes 12 mile road marches with full combat gear through mountanious areas. I found nothing specific regarding what tasks were deficient with the females. But, even if it was a “lowering” of the bar regarding PT, the requirement was, in order to pass a 2nd cycle, there had to be a demonstrated improvement over the prior attempt in that specific aspect.

                  IMO, it would be counterintuitive to lower a bar, allow a retry, expect improvement, but somehow, to acheive that improvement, lower the bar further? That would be a demoralizer to both the candidate & the entire program, IMO.

                  Guess the point I’m going towards is that even if the initial attempt ( for the female candidates) was skewed to a somewhat lower standard, (which I do not fully buy into) nonethelesss, the 2nd attempt had to show improvement through additional personal effort & performance.

                  That takes intestional fortitude & determination., especially when one has already experienced the effort & initially failed. So what lies ahead is now a known obstacle that will require additional effort, above what was put forth initially, to overcome.

                  Again, JMHO. Time will tell. I would truly like for one of these females to go through BUDS & potentially become a SEAL. That might be the true test of capability & answer that question as to whether certain females can indeed bring themselves to be on par with male elite combatants. There will certainly be a select few that accompolish that. This is going to be a long process that will evolve over time.


  18. RINOKiller says:



  19. y’know i guess some chicks wont mind not bathing for days or weeks on end while out in the field doing overwatch of a suspected bad guys bed down location nor mind her male platoon mates watching her change tampons, pee/take a dump or anything else seen as unseemly by females. full disclosure, as a retired vet i flew combat sorties over iraq’istan with some of the most hardcore ass-wrecking female warrior goddesses uncle sammy has produced and on more than one occasion did this very topic rear its head while in flight and not once did any of them ever relate to me their intentions of wanting to someday be able to volunteer for any combat role that would require them to do any of the aforementioned activities. oddly, several had a greater fear of being raped (repeatedly) if captured rather than dying if the plane crashed.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. amjean says:

    Much of the protesting against the Viet Nam war was by young
    people who were against being drafted in to a war that made no sense.
    Young people today have no clue that they could be drafted in
    the same way for the same reason. Their parents should be
    careful whom they vote for less they lose their children to another
    senseless war adventure over seas.

    Trump is correct; we have stupid, incompetent people. They are
    in addition to the others who commit treason daily. Can’t wait to
    take our country back. Trump 2016!

    Any of the other candidates can just go suck on an egg!


  21. jackphatz says:

    Since we are all counting down the days of Hell, we have 413 more.

    Having said that…is this just more of the Democrats “War On Women” and could Obama truly HATE females anymore then by decreeing this? The “man” is a psycho!


  22. americalsgt says:

    I was in the infantry. I think this is a bad idea. In a situation when your country is under attack I can see why this might be necessary, but to go out on patrol I would not want to have a woman in my squad.


  23. CrankyinAZ says:

    Oh hell no!! I’m a Navy brat… the men in my family have always served (some women too). But this is just wrong. If women choose to serve in the military, that is their choice. But drafting women. Evil… just evil.


  24. Sioux says:

    Why again are young women not required to register with the Selective Service? Isn’t that the only FAIR thing? The Draft will surely need to be re-instated due to all the active shooting wars our Govt. seems to relish so much, or maybe we can use all those young “refugees” to come fight for our team (yeah, right).
    As far as women having access to all roles in the military including frontline combat, I am all for it on one condition. Obviously women will never be able to perform on a par with their male counterparts, and they will put men in their unit in harms way simply because they don’t have the physical capability that most men do. Rather than rely on men to bail you out, Ladies, how about you go into all female fighting units? NO men allowed. Go fight and get muddy and bloody and maybe shot or captured, and let your fellow ladies pull your butt out of harm’s way or die trying. Wonder how that would work out?


  25. Rodney Plonker says:

    It’s careful what they wish for as you may get it. If women want to serve in front line, let them.

    I agree they ALL should now be signed up for a selective service. After all, it is discriminatory that only men should have to die for their country.


  26. rodney says:

    It’s all about social engineering and ruining the military. Progressive women for decades have been screaming that there is no biological difference between them and a male. This is just the end result of that academic idiocy.

    I would just love to see some of these feminists spouting this get into the ring with a golden gloves boxer or collegiate wrestler or enter a smoker. Of course they won’t because they know what will happen to them. They’re just there to buffalo other women into becoming as messed up as they are.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. As a Veteran I am going to make the following suggestions. Women should know how to handle a fire arm. Women should be part of a neighborhood watch, Women can be a LEO. Women can be part of a border patrol. Women can serve in coastal defence. Women can be part of a domestic national guard. And ofcourse women can be in support role in the military. But sending women overseas in a combat role is not wise. It compromises national interests and decision making.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. QuadGMoto says:

    Ideology trumps reality. That is all.


  29. goodkathie says:

    I am a woman, 68 yrs old. All you have to do is look at what’s been in charge of our country for the last 7+ yrs–Jarret, Rice, Power, hildabeast etc. yeah I know, not PC to say but I have had enough of women in charge.


  30. geston says:

    universl draft male female no exceptions ages 18-46 for 3 categorees
    1. military 2. national service 3. any other purpose
    #1+2 irrelevant when #3 = anyone anytime any reason all yr life – read the bill 😦


  31. thesitrep says:

    This guy is insane.
    The no female on earth is fit to be a Marine 0311.
    This stuff ain’t gonna fly.


  32. czarowniczy says:

    Where do I sign my ex-wife up?


  33. hannah1964 says:

    This is a dumb idea pushed by radical feminists, not most women. Another dumb idea is women firefighters. This was also forced on us by the liberals. If you check, women are only four percent of firefighters. Combat is much more rigorous than fighting fires. I think that the women who chose to serve in combat will be very, very very few..


Leave a Reply to goodkathie Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s