Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bill barring women in combat approved.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bill barring women in combat approved.

    No Women In Combat Passes House
    Associated Press
    May 19, 2005

    WASHINGTON - Women in the military would be barred from serving in direct ground combat roles, under a House bill that sets Defense Department policy and spending plans for the upcoming budget year.

    The House Armed Services Committee approved the overall measure early Thursday on a 61-1 vote. The same committee in the Senate passed a different version last week. The House and Senate are to vote on their respective bills next week.

    President Bush requested $442 billion for defense for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, excluding money to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The House bill, like the Senate's version, envisions creating a $50 billion fund for the conflicts for next year - but provides no money for it.

    The measure also calls for increasing the military by 10,000 Army soldiers and 1,000 Marines, boosting pay grades for uniformed personnel by 3.1 percent and permanently providing all Reserve and Guard members access to military health care services.



    In a nearly 15-hourlong committee hearing, the most contentious issue was the role of women in combat.

    The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat.

    "Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., who sponsored the amendment.

    It also allows the Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to notify Congress when opening up positions to women. The amendment replaced narrower language in the bill that applied only to the Army and banned women from some combat support positions.

    The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.

    "We're not taking away a single prerogative that the services now have," McHugh said.

    Democrats opposed the amendment, saying it would tie the hands of commanders who need flexibility during wartime. They accused Republicans of rushing through legislation without knowing the consequences or getting input from the military.

    "We are changing the dynamic of what has been the policy of this country for the last 10 years," said Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark.

    Added Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee's leading Democrat: "There seems to be a solution in search of a problem."



    The issue arose last week, when Republicans, at the behest of Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., added a provision that would have banned women from being assigned to "forward support companies."

    Those units provide infantry, armor and artillery units with equipment, ammunition, maintenance and other supplies in combat zones. The Army started allowing women to staff such support posts last year and says it is complying with the 1994 policy.

    Some Republicans aren't so sure. "The Army is confused. They're all over the place on this one," Hunter said.

    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday the Army is working with Congress and battlefield commanders "to find an appropriate way that's consistent with our country's view on that subject."

    He said the Army's attempt to reorganize and an asymmetrical front line on the battlefield muddies the issue.

    Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., cast the lone dissenting vote on the overall bill.

  • #2
    Might as well make women second class while their at it. War time is not the time to be making unneeded changes.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • #3
      "Sorry li'l lady. I know we took a wrong turn and are now surrounded by the enemy who is raining bullets at us. The law clearly states you can not take a direct combat role so you just load the guns while us men will have all the fun...er..do the shooting. And another thing. Make me a sandwich. I'm hungery. P.S. Your not getting combat pay because you're not supposed to be here. Don't worry or fret. Us men know what is best."
      Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

      Comment


      • #4
        Actually, women soldiers themselves are the driving force behind this change.

        The army did a study among female troops. 75+% of them are opposed to a direct combat role, or even operating side by side with men who are in combat roles.

        I hate to bust up all this great sarcasm, but thems the facts guys.

        Comment


        • #5
          Why not let the women volunteer for those billets, approved by our military leaders, that would expose them to combat conditions.

          That way:

          1. Combat troops/people know that the women are there by choice.

          2. The politicians & civilians would be assured that no "dainty flowers of womenhood" are being placed at risk.

          The following incident from ODS points out that some women aren't 'dainty flowers'.

          There was this Co., who's troops where being 'messed with' by officers & SNCO's from another command. The Co. CO finially had 'enough'. She barged into their Staff Meeting, pulled her 9 mil and stated....."If you all don't stop F*****g with my people, I'll teach you the true meaning of the word *****".

          I really didn't care if my people 'stood or squatted', the only things that mattered was if they pulled their own weight & accomplished their missions.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think his is a natural balaance prevailing.

            All these hippies and lesbains have for a long time forced women into roles like combat etc in a bid to burn bra's etc and get maternity leave and votes...

            now they pushed too far, and the women in these positions don't want to be, and so they have edged backwards and the boundary which has never really changed, just been streched has come right back....

            I think someone mentioned volunteering....how about that, it would ahve been a nice compromise, GI jane can, if she wants too, but if she does, she has to go the whole length.

            Comment

            Working...
            X