Women to be pulled from direct Combat Support roles?

[aricbcool]

Basically, the House Armed Services Commitee wants to bar women from direct combat support roles. They put the new legislation in the 2006 Defense Authorization Bill. The related article is below.

So... Good idea? Bad idea?

Hop up on your soapbox and let me have it. :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051101867.html

Panel Votes to Ban Women From Combat
Army Leaders Strongly Oppose House Subcommittee's Action

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 12, 2005; Page A08

Brushing aside opposition from top Army leaders, a House subcommittee approved a measure yesterday that would ban women from serving in certain support units in a bid to keep them out of "direct ground combat."

The vote is likely to escalate a political debate that has simmered in Washington since last fall over the role of women in war zones, as the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have engaged women in battle and killed and wounded female soldiers.

The legislation, backed by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), would require the Army to prohibit women from serving in any company-size unit that provides support to combat battalions or their subordinate companies. While not retroactive, the measure, if enacted, would block the assignment of women to thousands of positions that are now open to them, a committee staff member said.

"The American people have never wanted to have women in combat and this reaffirms that policy," Hunter said in a statement.

Army leaders strongly criticized the legislation in letters to Congress yesterday, saying women are performing "magnificently" in a wide range of units, working where battlefields have no clear front lines.

"The proposed amendment will cause confusion in the ranks, and will send the wrong signal to the brave young men and women fighting the Global War on Terrorism," Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, wrote in a letter delivered to the House yesterday. "This is not the time to create such confusion."

He said that the Army is in "strict and full compliance with Department of Defense policies regarding women in combat," but that it continues to "study" the role of women in light of an ongoing reorganization of Army units and the complex, changing nature of warfare. Cody wrote that Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, concurred with the letter, an identical version of which was sent to the House by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.

The legislation, an amendment to the 2006 defense authorization bill, was introduced with little advance notice yesterday after Hunter advised the Military Personnel subcommittee late Tuesday night to vote on it, congressional staff members said. It passed 9 to 7 along party lines.

The latest debate over women in combat was kindled by an Army reorganization started last year, which created new mixed-sex "forward support companies." The companies were designed to be located together with combat battalions so they could provide them directly with supplies, maintenance and other support. Critics of the change, however, including some congressional Republicans, said it violates a 1994 Pentagon prohibition on women in units that "physically collocate and remain with direct ground combat units."

The Army said it has adjusted its organization to comply with the policy on women.

Subcommittee Chairman John M. McHugh (R-N.Y.) said the legislation is aimed at enforcing a "no women in combat" policy, and denied it is a "Neanderthal initiative to keep women out of the Army."

Democrats on the subcommittee, however, criticized the amendment as unfair to women and warned that it could worsen recruitment a time when the Army is failing to meet enlistment goals.

"You are sending a message that women can't do this job," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.). Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.) asked, "Can we really afford to toss out 20 percent or more of the individuals who are serving so capably in these units?"

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) said the legislation amounted to "discrimination" barring women from "serving in the battlefield."

[72_Wilderness]

I would think that there are too many variables for it to be positively a bad or good idea. But we see the side effects now.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_women_051905,00.html


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.
n 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.