[dennisw]

Increase the Pool of Eligible Candidates
Recent statistics from the Pentagon show that three out of four young people ages 17–24 are not eligible to enlist in the military (Gilroy, 2009). Many fail to meet entry requirements related to education, test scores, citizenship, health status, and past crim- inal history. Further, racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to meet eligibility require- ments than are non-Hispanic whites, and that gap is widening. This is a national secu- rity issue requiring the attention and collected effort of top public officials, such as the President, members of Congress, and State and local leaders, all of whom can turn the tide by developing and executing strong, united, action-oriented programs to improve eligibility among the youth population. Together, these officials and other stakeholders, such as DoD, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security, can and should improve educational and physical readiness among American youth and foster new interest in military service.

The above excerpt is one of the recommendations from the final report. I find it hard to believe that 3 out of 4 persons ages 17 - 24 are not eligible to enlist in the military. If the results of the commission are based upon faulty research, one has to question their conclusions.


It also appears that the folks doing this study have not reviewed the ongoing work of others.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...ombat-1.219239

Meanwhile, a group of determined, senior female officers continued to forge ahead. While the men were bogged down in the territories and in Lebanon, the head officers of the Women's Corps (the job title was recently changed to Advisor to the Chief of Staff on Women's Affairs, or Yohalan, in the Hebrew acronym) remained focused on the target. Brigadier Generals Orit Adato, Suzy Yogev, Devora Hasid and the current advisor, Brigadier General Yehudit Grisaro, all sought to further the integration of women as combat troops. "The general staff just couldn't keep track," one of the women admits today. "We carried out a revolution right under their noses." Only recently, a committee has been appointed, headed by Major General (res.) Yehuda Segev, to closely examine the matter of women's military service. Instead of the patchwork approach of the past decade, Segev is trying for the first time to formulate a clearly defined policy on the issue.

For those opposed to the move, this marks the first opportunity to present an orderly objection to the trend fostered by several advisors to the chief of staff on women's affairs. Last week the Segev Committee met for another session, its sixth to date. On the agenda was a presentation that had already aroused sharp reactions during previous showings at other military forums. It is a document authored by several reservist officers, most of them religious.

In the past, the arguments against women serving in combat positions focused on the point of view of the religious soldier, who felt that he was being forced into intimate proximity with women under immodest circumstances. This time round, the arguments are much more sophisticated. The authors of the presentation collected material from a large array of sources, in Israel and abroad, that cast doubt on the usefulness of integrating women into combat. Bottom line, it's a blunt and learned attack on the sacred axioms of political correctness.

In the past, the IDF considered the armies of the United States and Britain as role models. But, in recent years, the policy of accepting women to combat roles has been receding in both these militaries. Thus, a 2002 report from the British Ministry of Defense notes that the army acknowledges that women may constitute a risk to effectiveness in battle. American law prohibits the integration of women in combat or combat support units below the brigade level. In 2002, the U.S. canceled combined basic training for men and women.

Other arguments against integration: The difficulty women have in carrying out the demanding physical tasks - the foremost of which is carrying heavy weights; the high frequency of injuries among female fighters (especially stress fractures); the modification of criteria in IDF units for the purpose of integrating more women; the introduction of sexual tension into combat frameworks; and the adverse effect on a unit's operational performance when put to the real test. So far, though, the evidence does not add up to a very weighty argument. There is just a collection of claims about poor performance or anxiety exhibited by female officers and soldiers during fighting in Gaza and Lebanon.

The central argument advanced by opponents is more interesting. The policy of the Yohalan, they say, was adopted without an orderly thought process or analysis. First the arrow was shot and then the target was marked around it. The IDF did not conduct an in-depth examination of what was happening in other armies or of the move's potential effects. Nor do the authors of the presentation shy from embarking on what might be called a witch hunt. They cite a number of statements by academic researchers who participated in studies initiated by the Yohalan. Some of these scholars have signed petitions supporting refusal to serve and opposing the war in Lebanon. The authors' conclusion: A "radical feminist" faction overtook military thought regarding the integration of female fighters, without the general staff's knowledge.

Déjà vu all over again!<<LINK>>

Sorry about the duplication.