Women Belong in Combat. And in the Draft.

[Purveyor]

By Editorial Board

The Pentagon struck a blow for both military preparedness and sex equality Thursday by opening all combat jobs to women. Allowing female troops who meet the same standards as men to fight the enemy improves a nation's ability to protect itself and its foreign interests.

But as the military takes this big step toward equal treatment of men and women, it inevitably comes up against a next one: the need for equality in Selective Service registration. Fair treatment demands that young women -- ages 18 to 25 -- be required to sign up.

Men have to register within 30 days of their 18th birthday, even if they're disabled or for any other reason would not realistically be suited for active duty. Failure to do so is a felony, and while prosecution is rare, it can mean ineligibility for federal jobs and benefits, college loans, and driver's licenses.

The U.S. hasn't had a draft since 1973, and despite major wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East, has never come close to reinstating it. But the Selective Service requirement remains essential to keeping the U.S. prepared for the unthinkable. Should a larger military be required, it's important to have a registry of all potentially eligible participants.

more...

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-04/women-belong-in-combat-and-in-the-draft-

[jonno99]

1. Declares members of an editorial board that have never been

on a 10+ mile march while carrying 60+ lbs of gear.

Even the women who "meet the standards" are more likely than the men to be injured (e.g. stress fractures,etc.).

IMHO - this is not a wise decision, it is a political decision (but I repeat myself...).

[katmondoo]

2. I weighed about 90lbs when I was 19

I tried Archery because I was so bad at sports but that was worse, I didn't have the strength to pull back the bow. I never could have gone through basic training. Also inclined to faint. I wasn't a whole lot different than a lot of other girls. Some Were strong and some not very.

[jonno99]

3. And to be fair, in basic training there is an attrition rate for the guys as well - for the

reasons you cite.

Even in sports there are only a few events where there is not a men's and women's division. Is this to disparage the ladies? No, is is simply dealing with the reality of male & female physiology.

[Elmergantry]

4. did you get this part?

"No female draftee, if it came to that, would be forced onto the battlefield, just as female enlistees will not be.

Why not?

[CTyankee]

5. I'm with you on this. If we are going to have a draft, everyone must serve equally...

[alarimer]

6. No, get rid of the draft; we do not and will not ever need it.

We have an incredibly bloated military (too big already, in my opinion). We face (nor will we ever) any existential threats. Any threats we do face are in fact completely overblown or come from our fellow Americans. But the Selective Service is, as a database, unnecessary. We all have SSN in order to work. We are in many other databases that could be used instead.

[JayhawkSD]

7. "Too big?" Depends on how you look at it.

In terms of what we spend; absolutely. We spend more than the amount spent by the next nine nations combined. Is there any justification for that? Depends on who you talk to. I think it's insane.

Too big for the mission presently assigned? Well, the answer is complex, but if it is too big, why are we having to send soldiers into combat zones five and six times? Why are we using equipment that is worn out?

Do we need to reduce the mission? Well, of course we do, but that has to precede reducing the size of the force, and given the task assigned to it, "bloated" is not the operative word..

[daybranch]

8. Actually I think the potential of a lottery based draft which makes very

very few exceptions and subjects the sons and daughters of the rich to threat of death by combat can be used to prevent wars. I say women should be subjected to the draft but I do not support their use in roles where the majority of them are unqualified physically. In combat you must have your most effective force and in my opinion that does not include any significant numbers of females, but you want everyone to be just equalized cannon fodder, you might think differently. I respect every life equally and that does not equate to putting women in roles where their performance adds increased risk above what what would be incurred with assigning a male. I know that many want to say a woman is just as capable and I agree that in most roles that do not require lifting, running etc. they are but in roles requiring the ability to carry heavier males and in attack, ambush, or escape scenarios which require the ability to run quickly often with fairly heavy loads for a female- loads such as a radio, or machine gun, or even the ammunition for machine guns and rifle magazines. I personally think women should be introduce into roles and have little problem with military police, most duties aboard a ship or submarine but I see the introduction of them into infantry units as an experiment that could increase combat deaths. The military in Vietnam refused to recognize the M-16 problems and this led to a number of deaths and Davey Crockett injuries. I have no faith they are not bowing to political correctness in this situation, and I hope it is not someone's son or daughter that dies due to this. There are really some rational limits on feminist promoted gender demands.

[Proserpina]

9. And I was hoping we could get the boys out of the military in this century, end wars, end the

standing army of conquest and invasion...silly me.