Must have missed a decimal in the conversion from metric.
Here's an article on sex offences as a reason for firing commanders. It's a big deal apparently.
Funniest quote in the article: "It's troublesome," said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's top spokesman. "Navy leadership is taking a look at why personal conduct seems to be a growing reason for why commanding officers are losing their commands. We're trying to get to the root causes. We don't really fully understand it."
I think it's interesting that it seems no one has brought up whether this move means that women will have to register with the Selective Service. Dosen't this go hand in hand with the equality that people want among the sexes?
I stated earlier that I don't necessarily have a problem with women in combat if they meet the same standards as the men. Shouldn't the draft be part of this?
Consider that if we (men) don't register, the result could be:
I realize that the 250k fine and jail time are almost never enforced, but I believe that the others are. Shouldn't the Pentagon and the Executive be pursuing the female draft more? Or should the draft just go away altogether? Personally I'm in favor of getting rid of it. Draftees seem to have more place in dictatorships and oligarchies than in....hummm. Maybe I shouldn't pursue that line of thought further.
A quick google search tells me that the gov has already been thinking about this since the 1990s.
Sure, thought about it nearly 20 years ago. Now the Pentagon is changing the one fact that seems to have killed the supreme court challenge against it, and the SecDef doesn't even know the head of the SSS's name. Now take a look at what was said on the link you provided:
Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD's view.
When Clinton asked the DoD to look at women and the draft last time, they used the "combat positions" justification to claim that women don't need to participate in the draft. Since they've changed that position, doesn't it seem logical that they might have at least considered the draft issue as well? Yet the DoD seems to have completely passed the buck.
Try the 1970s. That's when all the issues were in the news (below Watergate, that is...) At that time, I recall there was some talk considering the physical standards, as the then extant standards had been geared towards giving female clerical staff a military bearing, rather than combat fitness.
BTW, documentation of the debate about women even being in the military goes back to WWII. At that time, there was objections to the formation of the Women's Army Corps, based on the assumption that no decent woman, other than a nurse, would consider hanging around with soldiers...because "we know what sort of woman associates with The Regulars."
Of course, we were simply talking about the look at the Clinton administration directed in 1994. This has been part of the national conversation before. What kind of gets me is that now the DoD has actually implemented the policy and the draft issue seems to have barely raised its head. You would think that if the proponents of this policy were being intellectually honest they would either be saying "Women in combat and include us in the draft!" or "Women in combat and the draft is unfair for all!" Perhaps the folks pushing this agenda feel that they don't have enough political capital to push both issues, even if they logically go hand in hand.
While I realize that what Panetta said was technically true (i.e. the DoD is not in charge of the draft), I would think that the draft would certainly be considered a national security and force readiness issue. Whether you consider this to primarily fall under Panetta or Obama's purview, to the best of my knowledge neither one of them has really addressed this. Does anyone have more info on this?
BTW, I have been able to find some articles from 2008, prior to his election, where Obama said he supports a female draft along with women on combat. Haven't been able to find anything more recent. Where's his conviction now?
A guy I know in the Royal Canadian Navy put this up on fb.
Great article, and in my opinion a strong argument that females on combat positions would likely do well. However, a little food for thought.
I'm not speaking from experience here, but from the experience from the Marine CWO5 I currently sit next to. He's truly one of those "been there, done that" kind of guys, and speaks from experience. Discussing this topic with him, he points out that there is a big difference between "combat operations" and true infantry, just as he points out that there is a big difference between being in SOCOM and being a true special operator (SOCOM has around 60,000 personnel, most of whom are support).
I'm absolutely not going to take anything away from what MAJ Taylor has done, but I think that there is a huge misunderstanding in the civilian community (only slightly less in the military community) of what life is like for infantry and special operators. When we hear that folks have been in "combat operations" or have worked at a "forward operating base," we (the uninitiated) tend to read far more into it than those who know better (again, not taking anything away from the folks who have been there).
Bottom line, we need to adjust our policies to mirror the realities of modern combat--women ARE serving and dying in combat for our country. We have recognized that simple fact by opening combat specialties to females. That said, I would personally expect to see very few women make it into something like a marine infantry unit, possibly none in a special operations unit (SEALS, Delta, etc.)
I am in complete agreement about the disastrous consequences of eroticism in military affairs. That's why I thought it's a bad idea to have women & homosexuals, male or female, there. So what's with your if, then? No if. Don't do it!
I agree also that you did not deny the need for victory in any sense. I also agree with you on individual missions. But really, in the large scheme, the military does what it's told, however stupid. It's not just that politicians can intervene in very small missions, because they cannot help themselves; but it is not a political problem, necessarily, to lose a war. Aside from that, of course, the citizens can vote a president out of office or his party & thereby cripple foreign policy, even during a war. So in the narrow sense, it seems American arms are supremely competent; when it comes to achieving anything by that competence, well, I suppose everyone can see how that goes. I am not pleased to see that military changes are along the lines of introducing new things to stress unit cohesion rather than take out whatever keeps the military from achieving victory in war.