Secretary Of Defense Ash Carter Announces Historic Move To Allow Women In All Combat Roles

Defense Secretary Orders Military To Open All Combat Roles To Women With “No Exceptions.” Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced on December 3 that “the military will make 'no exceptions' to allowing qualified women to serve in any” combat position, a historic decision that reverses a ban on women holding “about 10 percent of military jobs, including some infantry, reconnaissance and special operations posts”:

Defense Secretary Ash Carter will order the military to open all combat jobs to women in 30 days, and the armed services will have to submit plans to make the historic change.

In a statement Thursday, he said the military will make “no exceptions” to allowing qualified women to serve in any position. Currently, women cannot hold about 10 percent of military jobs, including some infantry, reconnaissance and special operations posts, he said.

“We cannot afford to cut ourselves off from half the country's talent and skills,” Carter said.

The decision rebuffs arguments from the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman that the Marine Corps should be allowed to exclude women from certain front-line combat jobs, citing studies showing that mixed-gender units aren't as capable as all-male units.

“I believe that we could, in implementation, address the issues that were raised,” Carter said.

A senior defense official told The Associated Press that all the services will have to begin putting plans in place by April 1.

Carter stressed that the Defense Department will not implement a quota for the number of female service members. [CNBC, 12/3/15]

Right-Wing Media Decry Women In Combat As “A Social Experiment”

Fox News Correspondent: “It Is A Social Experiment” To Allow Women To Serve In All Positions In The Military. On the December 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox correspondent Lea Gabrielle called the move to open all combat roles to women “a social experiment” and said she doesn't think the military “shoul[d] be an equal opportunity employer,” adding that “we really need to give the people in that petri dish” the space “to determine can [women] really handle this?” Co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck also asked whether “this [is] the time” to make this decision:

LEA GABRIELLE: I think, you know, if the Defense Department is basically trying to push the belly button of, you know, the services and say if women cannot do this, tell us why, prove it, that's one thing. But I think at this point we really need to give the people in that petri dish, the people who are at BUDS [Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL], which is where they train Navy SEALs, for example, the room and the space to really assess women if they end up going through BUDS, to determine can they really handle this? Is this going to make our military stronger?Because the real question here is -- it shouldn't be an equal opportunity employer, I don't think. The question is can women make the military, these specific units, stronger? If the answer is yes, OK great. If the answer is no, we really need to take a look at what we're doing here.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK (HOST): I'm hearing terms like petri dish. Do you believe this is a social experiment? If so, is this the time?

GABRIELLE: It is a social experiment and I've been in that social experiment. When I became a combat fighter pilot, I was one of the first women to do it. And I had more senior male officers say, you know, we don't know if this was a wise decision or not. And I said, well you know, the decision's been made so I want to be part of this. But it absolutely is. There are dynamics that are intangibles that is very difficult for anyone to understand if you haven't actually served in some of these most elite units. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/4/15]

National Review Online: Women In Combat Is “A Historic Mistake” For Which “America Will Pay A Blood Price.” On December 3 National Review contributor David French bemoaned the Department of Defense's decision as “a historic mistake,” writing that “the social justice warriors have won.” French said to “expect combat effectiveness to steadily degrade” and warned that “America will pay a blood price for this insanity. Political correctness kills”:

The social justice warriors have won. Today, in a decision the media is hailing as “historic,” the Pentagon is opening “all jobs in combat units” to women:

[...]

This decision is indeed historic -- a historic mistake. Keep in mind that the Obama Administration makes this decision even after intensive Marine tests showed that mixed-gender units were far less capable than their all-male counterparts. Women were injured “twice as often as men,” less accurate with their weapons, and less able to “remove wounded troops from the battlefield.” As I wrote at the time, even that devastating summary understates the differences:

[...]

This decision has nothing to do with combat effectiveness. Indeed, expect combat effectiveness to steadily degrade as the social justice warriors inevitably take aim at physical standards that will exclude the vast majority of women who attempt to join the infantry or special forces. Radical feminists will find infantry units that are four percent female almost as intolerable as units that exclude women entirely. Even if the standards don't change on paper, instructors at the various relevant military schools will be put under enormous pressure to pass sufficient numbers of women.  

Unless the next defense secretary has the courage to reverse Carter's decision, America will pay a blood price for this insanity. Political correctness kills. [National Review, 12/3/15]

Washington Free Beacon: “Questions Of Social Progress” Will Imperil “Winning In Combat.” On December 4 Washington Free Beacon managing editor Aaron MacLean lamented that “the times, they are a changin' men -- better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone.” MacLean called “the question of women joining [the special ops leaders]” “academic,” but said that opening the highest tier units to women “is impossible, barring a vast change in the physical standards.” MacLean further wrote, “Who cares what the Marines think about winning in combat when questions of social progress are on the table?”:

How to read that passage and not conclude that the services were not to be trusted to act in good faith? The reason the decision could not be delegated to them is that they can't be relied upon to make the right call themselves. The reason exceptions were to be based only on a “rigorous analysis of factual data” is that, if this were not specified, obviously those sexist generals would simply continue to keep units closed because of their broad, fact-free prejudices. The times, they are a changin' men--better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone.

And swim the Army and the special operations community have, right with the current. For the special ops leaders, the question of women joining their ranks was always somewhat academic, so the easiest thing for them was simply to agree and then go back to doing their jobs. For their lower tier units, such as the Ranger Regiment, with significant special attention (more below) it is possible that a handful of women could be admitted each year. For the highest tier, including the units that killed bin Laden and captured Saddam Hussein, it is impossible, barring a vast change in the physical standards.

[...]

Who cares what the Marines think about winning in combat when questions of social progress are on the table? As President Obama put it in a statement praising the Pentagon's “historic step forward” yesterday afternoon, “When we desegregated our military, it became stronger.” Gender integration is just the latest advance, following the racial integration of the last century. The premise here, of course, is not in fact mainstream, but radical: that sexual differences are identical to racial differences. The mainstream of American opinion agrees that racial differences are physically superficial (literally skin deep, in a sense) and essentially social constructions. The president's argument implies that gender differences are meaningless as well: that men and women are essentially interchangeable.

Of course, if this is true, then why stop where we are? Why should the selective service be restricted to males? Indeed, a reporter asked Carter yesterday if his decision affected the question of the draft. Though he moved on to clarify that such an issue was beyond his authority, the secretary's response began: “It may do that...”

Better start swimmin'. [Washington Free Beacon, 12/4/15]

Laura Ingraham: This “Embarrassing” Decision Is “Socially Re-Engineering Men And Women's Relationships.” On the December 4 edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, conservative commentator Laura Ingraham strongly decried the “embarrassing” change, which she described as “socially re-engineering ... the relationship we have among the sexes, between the sexes.” Ingraham claimed that “as far as I can tell, nobody wants this,” and blamed feminists who “want to screw up what works”: 

LAURA INGRAHAM: This is just embarrassing. What woman out there wants to be in combat roles? Give me the list of the women who are dying to be out in infantry in Iraq or Syria, heaven forbid. 

[...]

You know what Trump should say? Trump should come out and say I'm going to reverse what they did. Trump should come out and say I'm reversing this. Women should not be in combat roles. The first woman who is capture by ISIS. Know what they'll do to her? We don't want them doing anything to any of our soldiers. But that's really where we want to take this? I don't think so. I'm disgusted by this. I'm disgusted. Women are doing great things in the military, and do put themselves in harm's way and are in harms way. Whether they're engineers or medics. They are in harm's way. But the forward operating combat unit is a different animal. It's a different animal. And the social engineering of our government from every aspect of our lives, they're socially re-engineering men and women's relationships, the relationship we have among the sexes, between the sexes. It's all being force fed. As far as I can tell, nobody wants this. Who wants this? Some of the feminists want this who would never want to be in the military. These feminists don't want to be in the military. They just want to screw up what works. They want to just fuzz up the gender -- the gender deal. That's what they want to do. They don't want to be in the military. Most of these people aren't very patriotic people at all. They have an agenda. And if this means that some unit has to have its integrity compromised or safety compromised because some liberal will feel better, because a woman's in a combat role, then so be it. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 12/4/15] 

Rush Limbaugh: Allowing Women In All Combat Roles Is “Absurd.” On the December 3 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh decried Carter's decision, calling it “as absurd as Obama going out and talking about gun control,” and mocked the historic change, saying “take that ISIS. Take that”:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: So in the midst of all this, you know what just happened? Were you happening to watch TV, you were screening calls, you didn't -- the secretary of defense out there, our illustrious Secretary of Defense Ash Carter during that last commercial break was out doing an announcement, and you know what he announced? He announced that -- wait for it -- women will now be allowed to participate in most, if not all, combat roles in the U.S. military. Take that ISIS. Take that. In the midst of all of this, that's as absurd as Obama going out and talking about gun control. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/3/15]

Ann Coulter: “We're Like Arabs Now” With No “Reverence For Women.” In a December 3 tweet, conservative commentator Ann Coulter responded to the news by saying “And there goes Anglo-America's reverence for women. We're like Arabs now”:

And there goes Anglo-America's reverence for women. We're like Arabs now. https://t.co/Gg2Q024tz6

-- Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) December 3, 2015 

[Twitter.com, 12/3/15]

Post has been updated to include additional examples