can you BELIEVE this XXXX?

[Anonymous]

have you guys heard about the law they're trying to get passed banning women from combat support? i'm so pissed i cant even think...

[GIJane]

That's not completely true. They passed a law banning women from direct ground combat not combat support. Read this article:

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.

[Anonymous]

but isn't that what the current law already does?

[webadmin]

This was being pushed by Elaine Donnelly and the CMR. They are in direct opposition to what the military feels is needed and the CMR and Donnelly both feel that the military is crossing the line in their interpretation of the law. But take heart, the ammendment has been withdrawn because the military has said that the women are needed. The House Armed Services Committee is going to take a closer look at what is happening.

[tperng]

I was also pretty upset at hearing the news about the new law banning women from direct combat. And they're even thinking about adding an amendment to include combat support :x . However, it's not going to discourage me from joining the Corp and becoming a Marine.

On the other hand, the new law should provide more incentive for all military women and those who want to join the military to prove the lawmakers wrong. Today's professional military is already color blind. It's a shame it's not gender-blind yet, but whining won't get us anywhere. Although hard work sometimes isn't enough to bring fairness equality to the workplace (that's why we have lawsuits), it's the foundation for getting people to respect not just you personally, but women in general.

So don't get discouraged! Harness your anger to work hard and be the best at what you do. It'll also help to get more politically active. It doesn't matter which party you are affiliated with, your representatives in Congress are supposed to work for you whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Let them know how you feel by writing letters (emails are not as effective) and you can even schedule a time slot to talk to them in person.

[Anonymous]

Good news! I just heard that the sponsors of that bill has shelved it due to bi-partisan opposition in Congress as well as from the Pentagon. It's a victory for all our brave servicewomen who are currently serving in combat zones. :D