Posted on 10/11/2017 6:21:44 PM PDT by markomalley
The Army will expand the number of installations where it assigns female soldiers serving in previously all-male, front-line combat jobs as more women enter the infantry and armor fields, a top general said Wednesday.
To date, more than 500 female soldiers have completed training to serve in infantry and armor jobs that only became opened to them in December 2015 when the Pentagon eliminated rules barring women from serving in certain military jobs, Lt. Gen. Thomas C. Seamands, the Army’s chief of personnel, said during the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual meeting in Washington.
“These are citizens who a few years ago would not have had the opportunity to be infantry or armor soldiers, and they are now doing it and doing it quite well [and] with distinction,” he said.
So far, the Army has assigned about 100 of those female soldiers to units at two posts — Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Hood in Texas. Women are serving in infantry and armor units within Fort Bragg’s 2nd and 3rd Brigade Combat Teams in the 82nd Airborne Division and in Fort Hood’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division and 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.
The other roughly 400 soldiers in those fields are now in various training programs while they await assignments to combat units.
But as more women enter the previously closed fields, the Army will need to expand the number of installations where it assigns female infantry and armor soldiers, said Lt. Col. Naomi Mercer, the Army’s chief of command policy who is helping develop the gender-integration process for the service.
The Army said last month that it had an additional 184 women attempting to join the infantry and another 125 attempting to serve in armor jobs.
The expansion of posts with female infantry and armor soldiers could come within the next year, Mercer said.
She declined to identify which Army installations were being considered, but she said female infantry and armor soldiers would likely begin their careers at larger posts with multiple combat units.
Fort Hood and Fort Bragg were chosen because they are large installations with extensive resources for soldiers serving in combat arms fields, Mercer said.
“The consideration is based on the opportunities for the [soldiers] who go there,” she said. “The reason that we picked Fort Bragg and Fort Hood in the first place is that those are armor and infantry hubs.”
Just as the Army has done at Fort Hood and Fort Bragg, it will place at least two female officers or noncommissioned officers in a unit before it moves junior enlisted soldiers —in the rank of specialist or below — into those units.
The Army calls that structure a leaders-first approach to integrating women into fields that were traditionally all male. Mercer said the structure has been effective so far and the leaders are paving the way for new soldiers just out of initial entrance training programs to move into the combat force.
“We’ve been preparing for this since 2012 and it has proven it works,” she said. “Everybody is filtering in. It just takes time.”
It’s almost as if winning wars isn’t even on the agenda anymore.
I just don’t think this is a great idea. Men are generally chivalrous and will want to protect the women, which may compromise their combat readiness, which could, in turn, put them in harm’s way.
I am not a soldier, and am a woman, but that is just my two cents. :)
Trump will stop this cold!!
Call me old school or whatever, but I’m not real comfortable with this.
I’m not former military but I try to support those in the field by advocacy.
Am I off base here?
Does this slow down others who are considerably more physically capable? Does it reduce our efficiency? Am I being overly concerned?
How much PC is involved here? Are military leaders urged to talk up the female abilities?
I just want the best folks on the line, and our forces to be as physically formidable as possible.
If the women can do the job at the same level the men can, I would be a lot more comfortable with it.
Any thoughts? Please see my earlier post.
Fire and remove every single officer promoted under obama or Clinton. Purge every single position possible and install Christian conservatives.
Umm, can one of you help me get the SABOT off the ready rack?
Forced road marches will stop this nonsense. March 25 miles at almost a trot carrying a LMG or a mortar baseplate...
Sure hope so!
[It’s almost as if winning wars isn’t even on the agenda anymore]
It isn’t.
On any given day, upwards of XX% of women are non-deployable due to being pregnant.
Not counting the one who get pregnant prior to leaving after notification of deployment
or get pregnant while deployed and get to come home early.
BIG morale issue with deployed troops. And not going to get any better with adding more women - ask the Navy how well that has worked out.
Another gift from Obama...
All my promotions came under Jimmy Carter before Ronald Reagan was elected. Am I Tainted?
well good luck with that...
Women served with distinction in WWII, women pilots ferried planes everywhere, WASP’s I they were called. My mom was invited to join but her vision may have been a problem.
There are many women serving as deck officers and marine engineers on merchant ships chartered to the navy and
are doing well in those positions.
Women served with distinction in WWII, women pilots ferried planes everywhere, WASP’s I they were called. My mom was invited to join but her vision may have been a problem.
There are many women serving as deck officers and marine engineers on merchant ships chartered to the navy and
are doing well in those positions.
Just like on the Navy ships the women will get pregnant to get out of the units...
Me neither. Please see my earlier post. In the end, I think it puts our men in danger. They will be worried about their women in combat and won't really be able to focus.
Because most gentlemen will want to save the lives of the women near them, putting their own lives at risk.
Call me old school or whatever, but any social change in the Armed Forces should only be done after answering the question, how does this change increase the combat capability of the Armed Forces?
If the "powers that be" can't quickly, easily, and logically answer that question, then leave bloody well enough alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.