Sound Off: Should Women be Eligible for Special Operations Roles?

1st Special Forces Group

1st Special Forces Group

The Pentagon lifted its ban on women entering military combat roles in 2012, but the effects of that decision are still rolling out. Each branch with combat-oriented positions must open those positions to women before 2016 or make a strong case why they shouldn’t be required to do so. That means more than a few tough decisions for our Armed Forces.

The current controversy is centered on Special Operations. With the 2016 deadline looming, there isn’t much time left to make a decision. Recent polls suggest that there is a lot of opposition to women taking on special operations roles.

Andy Hamilton, who works with Dan Bland, force management director for U.S. Special Operations Command and has expertise on this issue, noted that women in special operations jobs had concerns, too, about the broader integration.

“They’re concerned that this might result in the lowering of the standards in what are currently our male-only occupations, and that would then reflect on either them or on the women who come into those occupations,” said Hamilton.

Do you think women should be allowed to enter Special Operations roles? Sound off!

  • Rivrat1970

    As long as they meet the full current criteria. Everybody who seeks to qualify needs to understand that you better be in a condition to sustain the initial very brutal physical and mental stress and have what it takes to be even better and to admit failings and overcome. “Many are called, few are chosen.” The “shame” is not trying if called. Give credit to those who tried. they will be even better than at the start.

    • Leon Suchorski

      And not even ONE FEMALE MARINE has measured up to passing Infantry O.C.S., yet. All have either failed, or dropped out.

      • zach

        So try, try again as the guy said you only get better…

      • Drew

        I concur; however, how many times should they be allowed to re-cycle? It costs the tax payer money to train someone, and they get nothing in return if they wash out.

    • Beau

      If a person, male or female, is willing to try, and fails, and policy allows for them to try again, and they do and fail, again, they should be commended for their best efforts and move on to otherwise serve.

  • macgringo


  • JohnD

    They should and are to a point, depending on what unit your looking at! Should they be in Ranger battalions or on SF A Teams? If they can qualify! Some could be used at Group or Regiment level and still do their jobs. Not everyone in those units are killers, they still need clerks, medics, supply, cooks etc. I,was an active duty Physician Asst for 16 years aNd a female PA could have done my job easily! All you arm chair commandos need to understand what the real operators do, the physical and mental issues are huge! The personal deprivations are huge too! No porta potties or tents, humping everything you need for,a 10″day mission on your back! Combat is the easy part!

    • Leon Suchorski

      If you want them in the Army, you are welcomed to them. But in the Marines, we have different standards. In my 4 years in the Marines, about the only job that I did not do, was mess duty, including the jobs that you mentioned.

      • Boe

        So just exactly what did you do?

      • Leon Suchorski

        My main job was working on the radar system on the EA-6A. But then I was swapped to a F-4 outfit with less than sis months to go in Nam, and had to learn the whole aircraft from scratch. When I transferred out, I had conduct and proficiency marks from that outfit of 4.8, and 4.9, out of 5.0. I was solving gripes that no one else could solve. I had guts enough to sign off on a “no radio” gripe, with a “request next pilot check” in Nam. I never left the maintenance shack on that one. I was GREAT.;

    • DonB

      Well JohnD, women already serve in SF Groups at the Group/support level, the only qualification is they airborne. Unlike Ranger school where you can go and not serve in a Ranger Bn, in SF if you complete the Q course you serve on an ODA. Having served in a SF Group for 22years, 16 of that on and ODA I can tell you they should not be at the ODA level. As the Corps found out they are not physically capable of that kind of stress on their bodies. Mentally I can’t tell you. If there was a circumstance where we need the presence of a female we can get one from Group. I wonder how many of the MC women that tried out for the infantry course are still physically fit to remain on active duty?

      • Dragonfry80

        It made no sense that the Marine Corp women were not required to meet the same qualification standards as the men. If they had, there might have been a greater opportunity for success. Additionally, having to meet the same standards would have helped determine what kind of preparation was needed to do so.

    • Manny

      Well yeah John, that’s the point here, females are not built like men. Hell, there are many men who cant make it in Infantry or SF units! Standards would have to be lowered, no matter how bad ass a female thinks she is, just sayin’…

  • Garrett

    No. They boy goes down so the girl goes free

  • Rick

    Anyone who meets current standards should be allowed to serve. Under no circumstances do I advocate for gender based standards. I recognize that there may be a larger percentage of females that don’t make the grade but that will just have to be the reality of the situation. Those that do pass will have more prestige and respect.

    • MJJ

      There already are gender-based standards! For at least the past 35 years, basic training physical fitness requirements have NOT been equal.

      Instead of today’s PC police proposing MOS-based standards, while claiming equality, let’s just make all basic physical fitness requirements the same.

      I forgot… at least 30% of the females might not qualify!!!

  • Gage

    No women should not be able to serve in a combat roles period let alone in a special operations format.

    • Rick

      Why not?

      • Dave

        There would have to be some very strict guidelines on women in special operations roles…. on a 2 man week long OP, a random period could be costly and get people killed. In a traditional combat sense what happens in a 14 hour firefight when a woman starts getting cramps from things like that? If they are willing to go through the necessary medical channels to alleviate that problem… Then we could start to think about it. You also have to consider when people get shot. A 200 Lbs man (Most Operators are at least that) with his 80 lbs of kit needing to be dragged or carried long distances to the 18D or out of a house to the outer cordon…. strength becomes a huge issue.

      • Drew

        First off, if you’re evacing someone, don’t worry about their kit; I don’t care how high speed it is, gear can be replaced. Secondly, I agree with the physical limitations you mentioned; however, I don’t think that would be applicable to the SpecFor missions that don’t require squatting in the bush for long periods of time (puns unintended).

    • christine

      You do not know anything about what a woman can do. Im a 5 foot tall 100 lbs woman and I carried a Saw when I was in and so does my fellow women soldiers that was with me. But i do agree that women should not be in special ops our body is different and if we get captured the enemy will do a lot more to women. No matter how tough women are its just not worth that.

  • guest

    Exactly why do women have to be integrated into combat roles. to include spec-ops by 2016? Who says so? Who made the decision and why can’t it be changed. It is both a dumb and unnecessary decision.

    • Dragonfry80


  • KenLand

    Yes if they pass one standard, and let them fight. That is the ultimate test.

  • 1sg usa ret

    they should also under stand if they become a POW they are just meat (sex) to them and if wounded
    you have no privet parts…..

    • Dragonfry80

      You think they somehow don’t give this a thought?

  • Ernie Gudino

    Men and women can nott work that closely together without drama and issues(ive seen it first hand), also standards will fall we have seen it with the rest of the military, so lets try to save special operations. Equality will get people killed plain and simple!!

    • Course240

      Women have a hard time working with other women as well.

  • JDs Handsome Son

    Women will be eligible, will finish “successfully” all courses and requirements, and will be issued berets. . . . as ordered. The standards will be lowered. Period.

    • Garth Harding

      In one arguement look at the standards of women soldiers in Israel and other countries. Don’t lower the standards to live,survive at all cost and ultimately be tortured or die.

  • Women always seem to have a physical handicap, such as in golf. Most women that I have ever served with always had a hard time keeping warm in cold weather and always needed something to drink. Women will never be able to pee their name in the snow!

    • Leon Suchorski

      I have a joke about that , and everyone will love it, but the censors would cut it out.

    • course240

      Should first have women and men compete against one another in the Olympics.

  • Bignavguns


  • Mike

    This is a joke, I will say it’s not that they can’t, some could pass the standard. Yet, that does not eleviate the issues all men have. Which is until I can teach my son to hit a girl like he would hit a man when disrespected then we will always think of women as the weaker sex.

    • Dragonfry80

      It appears that your method of resolving issues is somewhat misguided. Unfortunately many men find it perfectly acceptable to hit women like they hit men. I applaud your not teaching your son to do this. But do you teach him that he should resort to fighting in other instances? If so, what are those instances? How do you teach him what is justified and what is not?

  • Adrian

    short answer: no

  • Muttling

    Mentally YES, they can do it and do it well. Physically, NO they simply don’t have the brute strength required for the job. This said, units that specialize in acquiring partizans such as special forces units could really benefit from having women in the ranks as women are sometimes better accepted and trusted than men. Women can’t meet the standards of Seal Team 6 for direct assault, but they can seriously add to the abilities of a green beret unit to do force augmentation.

    • Dragonfry80

      Would these women be recognized and compensated on par with these men? It would seem that even though they have not met the same physical standards they are still in harm’s way.

  • M.T. Majors

    Everything in the current military psychology leads me to believe that standards will be gender based. When women will be required to meet the same physical fitness standards as men and start wearing the hair in a high and tight so that they do not look like civilians out of uniform, then I will be at peace with the idea of women in combat units.

  • Joe

    Women do not belong in any combat role, period. They are less likely to perform as well as men, need special everything and are generally disruptive to good unit cohesion. Seen it first hand when women were forced down the throats of policemen working the streets. Women are capable of doing 95% of the job; but it is that last 5% when you really need a backup and a woman shows up and is useless.

    I’m combat it is 100% worse than as a policeman.

  • CiBetances

    If there are no special standard for either gender, and everyone that qualify and can perform in every situation the same, then women that do should be allow.

  • John

    Women do not need to be in the special forces. First of all a man by nature is hard wired to protect the woman. These men that do this job like seal, rangers delta forces etc should not be made to try to protect a woman and themselves on these missions. Just like a dog the make is hard wired to protect the woman at all cost. They special troops can’t do their job properly if they have to worry about the female they have with them. So not they do not belong in that

  • ron

    only in the Intelligent dept. not the sniper or strong arm combat are navy seal type operations . due to their venerability to a sexual attack and some man dare to try to rescue her and jeopardies the whole mission. and get every one killed.

    • Guest veteran

      Yes, Ron, let’s leave the sexual assault to their comrades-in-arms. No need for us to worry about the enemy as too many of us have met him/them and they wear US uniforms.

      • Gin

        That line of thought is all the more reason to reject this proposal.

  • usmc0846

    NO !! But I am one of those that feel women ought not be in any ground combat unit. I suppose that marks me as a Neanderthal, but I am OK with that.

  • Dalton


  • BobSacamano

    My initial response is [no], then after I give it some thought, it’s [HEII no]…!

  • Richard

    Absolutely they should be allowed. With the proviso they meet all standards posted and demanded for they male counterparts. What is good for the goose is good for the gander – NO FAVORS AT ALL

  • Ralph Roe

    Don’t lower the standards! If a woman is ever born who can survive the training, let her in!

  • Chuck

    If they can meet the standard, they can do the job. Period. Don’t lower the standard, and don’t give them any special treatment. But if some Olympic triathlete freak of a woman decides she wants to serve, it would be a travesty to keep her out because some idiots can’t think with anything other than their dicks.

  • bbabbitt

    They could and should serve in SF roles if, and only if, they can meet current qualifications and the regimen is not dumbed-down to accommodate them.

  • Stephen


  • Engineer

    I think if the Women’s Lib’s want women in combat, so be it. Right after they march their own 16 year old daughters down to the Selective Service Office to sign up!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • bobber

      Thank you! Since this conversation has started I have not seen anyone else talk about signing up for selective service! I feel this should be one of the first this brought up when making women “equal” in the military!

  • Leo Johnson

    I don’t see why not? Other countries do.North Korea ,China,russia,genmany,Isreal,Japan,Philippines,Mexico,Canada,some of the south American Countries,Cuba.just to name a few.

  • retsam369

    Very simply, NO. There’s no sense trying to rationalize an in between stand!

  • Tony D.

    Not just no but HELL NO. One word HYGIENE! Women cannot go as long as men without hygiene. Periods in combat especially in a Spec Ops environment will be a problem. This is just part of a long list of reasons why Females are not allowed to be In SF. This is not GI Jane bullshit this is real life. Like people have mentioned they cant even pass Marine Corps Infantry training. And the first SF female to be killed if it ever came to it and everyone will loose their minds again.

  • 8950331

    If anyone, man or woman, has the skills, intellect, & physical stamina to compete & make the grade; then why not? If they have it takes & want to serve in these capacities; then our nation should be thankful for it.

  • armyairborne72

    the marines just announced that no women passed their marine infantry office course. these results should say a lot about the question of women in special ops. the marine infantry officer course has a high wash out rate even for males. Special Ops is even tougher, if they wash out of the marines course what are the odds of women passing ranger school, the seals buds course or the green beret Q course? not very good odds i would think.

  • cynicsquid

    stupid is as stupid does.

  • Loren

    No way. Men are to be the warriors, period.

  • mkantzler

    Are there special-operations roles which do not require the strength and endurance of a well-conditioned man? If so, then yes, women should be eligible to train for those roles.

  • skip

    only as a honey trap!

  • Marty Stewart

    My question is…Are we that short of qualified men that we have to open up positions for women?

  • Rudy Griffin

    Only a few women will have the ability to endure the hardship, stamina and endurance of a special ops mission. Those who can should go for it. WWII had a Russian woman sniper who is at the top in kills. Women can shoot as well as men, some of the old west women proved they were better than men. Carrying heavy loads on arduous missions will take a mighty strong determined woman. No doubt, we
    will be reading about an woman spec ops hero in a couple of years.

    • Patriot1

      And when they get pregnant for fooling around, it is over for 1.5 years they will not train or take a PT test. How can even regular Army Infantry take 1.5 years off not to train and think that NCO rank will earn respect? What a joke.

  • Alex

    Short Answer, NO! This was tried off the books for the right reasons and it was a disaster. You have women sleeping around with different guys and they ended up outright banned from the out post due to emotional issues and in house fighting- friction. They are fine if you keep them in or around a vehicle, but no way can they carry 100lb loadouts for offensive missions. It has been tried and done already. Big Army just does not know this or wants to hear this.

  • Smitty

    This is what happens when grad students in the White House (who hate the military and don’t know any vets) use the services for social experiments- with foregone conclusions. There is simply no need for this. It would make more sense to require colleges to gender-integrate all athletics, football, basketball, etc. Require a representative number of every racial and ethnic category on every team. At least they would be playing against similar teams, and no one would be killed in the process. When we had presidents who were combat vets, no one would have proposed such an insane policy.

  • Paul Willis

    No, women should not be allowed to serve in any combat role in any way. However this issue has 3 facets. Thus far only one has been discussed. From the time women were allowed, as a stopgap measure, to join the military there lack of physical ability to compete with men head to head was clear. We should dispense with that argument. The other two facets, promotions and leadership, are the real driving forces behind what is already a forgone conclusion. Like it or not women will be in combat roles. And we have only to look to the prior history of other great nations to see the path that lies ahead. This is not history in the making. This is history repeated. Our failures as men to validate women in the roles for which they were and are clearly suited have caused them to seek validation in roles that put them face to face with the very arrogance they believe has kept them from receiving the love and adoration they have longed for and deserve.

  • C.V. Compton Shaw

    It is true that, in the training role, as in OCS or Special Operations, the most important requisites are physical prowess and the willingness and ability to endure physical and emotional hardships and abuse. However, in the actual combat role, intelligence and character are the most important attributes of the combat soldier. It is NOT the physical weakness of women which limits their ability to successfully serve in the combat role. (The average Japanese man has about the physical strength of the Average American woman). It is the fundamental intellectual and character weaknesses of women which thus limits their ability to serve in combat. This is a hard fact which many will criticize as fundamentally discriminatory. However, the intellectual and character weaknesses of women have been noted by many writers, philosophers, and others through out history, Audie Murphy, W.W. II Medal of Honor winner, an athlete? No. Sargent York, W.W. I Medal of Honor Winner, an athlete? No.

  • Dr. John Maddox

    They don’t have the upper body strength of a man. They do have the mental ability. Maybe, drone attacks but not hand to hand combat with a 6’9″ Enemy.

  • Absolutely not.
    Last duty station was the Pentagon, and I’m still realing from the Political Correctness being shoved down our throats by incompetent politicians, and an equally incompetent and treasonous Commander-in Chief.
    That goes for the D.A.D.T. repeal, enacted by a Fraud, and conceived by a Draft Dodger.

  • Jerry

    SpecOps is not an area of operations to consider political correctness or gender equality unless you are making a Hollywood movie. The nature of the missions, the requirements to execute a plan for those missions that have a high probability of success, including everyone on the team coming home safely, and the basic, common sense about the real differences in physical strength and resolve aside, don’t try to convince me the men on the mission won’t further jeopardize themselves to protect, recover or rescue a female if things go south. Those goals are demanding enough when the members are all men.

  • cudaron

    They should have exclusive SOCOM roles for women…in women only SOCOM groups and see how long they last…that way they have noone to blame but themselves when they are deemed COMBAT INEFFECTIVE. This job is not for the faint of heart, an idealist, or someone that has some liberal agenda. You have to be able to turn all that crap off in your brain and EXECUTE! The torture endurance training alone for the most elite, send most packing…this is not just a 6 month class to pass….it’s a lifetime commitment. The CIA utilizes women…but only those that can PROVE they will do ANYTHING to accomplish the Mission. There is a right way and a wrong way to do everything…the way our Liberal administration and their cronies(suck ups) in the pentagon are pushing women in these roles for the sake of “Gender Equality”, is definitely the wrong way. Give them a Chance to succeed…but not at the expense of others lives, just to level the playing ground…it’s not a game.

  • melatr7

    Bring back the Women’s Army Corps and let them have at it!! (Apart from the guys whose lives they might accidentally waste.) Women are exceptional and consistently raise the bar when rising to the standards set for women. Better to be a first class citizen in your own land than automatically a second class citizen in someone else’s. They would be AWESOME!! Women’s Combat Unit, Women’s Sniper Team, Women’s Seal Unit, etc.

  • Guest


  • Truman Booth

    If it weakens the team Then NO

  • dannyb

    as long as they dont dumb down the requirements I have no problem

  • Jordan

    Yes, of course. Pull your head out of your a**, Set a standard. Meet the standard. You’re on the team.

  • Navy Vet +30


  • Eric

    It is a bad idea. Just as bad as putting women in submarines. There are already difficulties with women in close quarters with men. Special ops are no difference. Excuse me, but young combatants still have raging hormones and they can lead to bad decisions.

    • Dragonfry80

      Those raging hormones and subsequent bad decisons can and sometimes do occur now. Women have nothing to do with them. The bad decision makers should be weeded out. Other wise it is like saying bank robberies are the fault of the bank. Your argument relieves the individual of responsibility for his or her behavior.

  • guest

    no they should not, I am sorry but this would be wrong for all. Ret Army JJackson.

  • Lester

    Not only should they not be in Special Operations, they should not be in the military.

  • FemaleCapt

    I’m reading a lot of comments that allude to the fact that men are hard-wired to protect women or that unit cohesion would suffer due to what I’m guessing is sexual tension or related drama. Well, how about an all-female special ops team? That would eliminate the “man wants to save woman” issue (if that exists) and women tend to be stronger in team-work, communication and cohesiveness.

    • Dragonfry80

      I think this is a viable interim step until women can prove themselves under fire. It allows most if not all of the excuses we have heard to be tested and disproven. Like the all black fighter escorts who ultimately were demanded on bombing runs in WWII, the next logical step would be working side-by-side with male units. And finally integration. The process would also allow additional talents women bring to the table to be highlighted. Different is not inherently bad.

    • Mark

      I can’t go because I’m having my period! This is a real consideration and not a put down for women.

      • Raxton

        Or she could just get knocked up if she doesn’t want to go. That happens too.

  • Beau

    Why would a woman ‘want’ to do this? She can watch any current ‘war’ movie and determine whether she’d like to do that. She won’t be respected, by either side, friend or foe, if she is successful. Men want to be in that position. It’s in their genes. Women will do it if it will defend the family and hearth, I think, but not ‘for a living’.

    Being capable is a goal. Standard military training goes far from ‘valley girl’ and ‘shopping runs’. Military women are capable. Want something more? Take leave and sign up for an Outward Bound adventure.

    This is not meant to slight military women, but, Why? Why go through all of that? This is being driven by some PC agenda and it’s only going to put all of our military strength at risk.

    But, people probably said the same thing about racially integrating the forces AND letting women in. So what do I know?

    • Dragonfry80

      About the respect part. Any woman who can hold her own in SF should command a great deal of respect from the side she is fighting for.

  • randdwhite

    The only question is whether it adds, subtracts, or interferes with the mission of Special Ops. Too often the standards are changed in the name of political correctness. All things being equal,no exceptions should be made just to get women into the units and they either do it on a truly equal basis and hold their own rf get eliminated. I know that women have the smarts and ability to do most things but when it comes to strength and stamina, they are at a disadvantage.

    • Dragonfry80

      But you would support integration if there were a few good women who could meet the standard and maintain performance?

  • jmcgachey

    Negative. For so many reasons. Esprit de corps, unit cohesion name it what you want. Men and women are hardwired for certain behaviors. When you add women into a unit, the dynamics are going to change…can’t be helped. It isn’t a question of who can do the job, it’s biology and it will detract from the mission. Here’s an idea…start a SO unit of just females. Start all female ship’s companies.

    • Dragonfry80

      Sorta like the separate but equal concept?

  • John

    No! The nay’s listed above indicate factual, logical, social, practical reasons, and more.


    Women must get into compromising situations more often than men, ie, their drawers have gotta come down for almost everything except to pass gas. How is this going to be handled as privacy just may not be available???

  • Frank

    Plain and simple–NO, NO, and No. They can’t handle the job! They will get their “male” couterparts killed. The male will try and assist the females and be distracted and thus—causing the death of the majority of team members. In a word NO!

  • Guest

    Women have a variety of important roles in the army, but the problem with women in ground combat units is first and foremost their lack of strength and stamina compared to men. This is a reality that some proponents want to ignore for the sake of social policy. Strength and endurance continues to be a significant element of ground combat and it only makes sense to to have the strongest tough guys in direct combat, particularly special ops. An all female special ops team would probably do well against an all female special ops team from other countries, but that’s not the real world. If the politicians are going to open combat units to females, then they should also remove age restrictions for men. Lot’s of men in their 50’s are stronger and have more endurance than the most physically fit female. For example, to qualify for the Boston Marathon men in their 50’s have to have a faster time than women in their 20’s! But removing age restrictions for men is just as dumb as allowing females because direct combat is not a social experiment.. Young males win battles, always have and always will.

    • Dragonfry80

      You should stick to arguments that you can support. Your last statement shows your ignorance and arrogance.

  • SWCCgrl

    No. Hell no! I’m all for equality…I am woman hear me roar, but let’s be realistic. There are too many factors that would put MY operator’s life and the rest of the team in danger. Natural strength, hygiene, etc. “If it ain’t broke…” Why the hell are we trying to change a system that works? Because some woman somewhere got her feelings hurt? Honey…then this program isn’t for you to begin with. No. Keep her off my husband’s team.

  • Etienne

    no please please keep political correctness out of combat units

  • Mark

    There is a number of things to consider e.g. will there come a time when women, that don’t want to be, will be placed in special operations positions just because a handful of women wanted to prove they could do it? I honestly don’t think ninety percent of the female force desires to be in special forces. What about privacy issues while deployed? I can foresee male personnel getting themselves killed trying to protect female personnel. There will be charges that they made it harder on me and then they cuss and say inappropriate things. This idea could turn into a total nightmare.

  • Bob


  • Sarah

    Hello, we are already in Special Operations Jobs, I was in the 82nd Airborne, 82nd Signal Battalion. in the 90’s – under Joint Special Operations Command. Those who do not think this is happening are kidding themselves. It has been happening for over 30 years, their are just not that many of us yet.

    • Dragonfry80

      I’m with you, Sarah. Thanks for chiming in.

  • DonUSMCarty

    When are these stupid experiments going to stop with woman in certain roles?

  • Sam Bennett

    Women should not be in combat role. I supervised women and some want the pay and rank, but they
    don’t want to do the job that they are given pay for. Physically some are not able to do the job of their
    male counterpart. I retired in 1981, and I am confident there are women that are of the same mentality
    on active duty now.

  • Topher12

    Why do we not see women fighting men in the octagon? Why are the Olympics separated based on gender? The answer is obvious. If women are going to be allowed in combat roles it should be in female only units. There is absolutely no way a women could carry me off the battlefield if I was incapacitated and there are plenty of bigger guys than me in special operations. Just ask some operator wives how they feel about this. I know my wife said “Hell NO!!!” And on the topic of budget constraints, how much money are the services going to spend to facilitate this transition? And how many will actually make it through? The juice is not worth the squeeze. Don’t even get me started on changing standards to “accommodate” women. It is the mission that determines standards, not gender. You will see a lower standard…the AF is already working it.

  • Luedersdad

    No ! but if they do want to horn in on Big Boy Country They should have their own Teams so they can prove that women are capable of carrying out Special operations on their own hook and not be a burden to be carried in combat by the real elite forces. I think the whole idea is ludicrous ! The elite combat forces probably only qualify a tiny percent of the men who try out . There might be 1 in a thousand women who could actually qualify but I doubt it. This PC Crud is getting out of hand !

  • Gordon

    Yes they should be. Granted they pass all the requirements. My concern is whether these women realize that they will not be treated the same as men if captured, prior to deciding on this career. If it comes to battle… I would rather have a woman at my side, than no one. For years and years women have wanted equal rights. Give it to them, but shed “NO” tears when they come back broken…or, not a all.

  • ltcmac

    No there will be too many unintended consequences. If the current system is ot broken why try to fix it for political correctness.

    • Marc

      Because it earns whomever created it an extra star or a step up on the political ladder not to mention the feminists’ support for upcoming elections. Shirley nothing can be more important than that.

  • eric 69-70

    NO, NO, NO … something about men will always cause team members to keep one eye on the woman. Lack of focus=lack of situational awareness=casualties.

  • UNR

    NO!! I’m a female, and in “88 I was an ROTC cadet and participated in an exercise with with our university “Rangers” and an SF team. We were taken prisoner and searched by the SF guys. I didn’t feel the guy did anything inappropriate (though it was a much more thorough search than we’d done in ROTC), but I found out later he was worried because his evaluator was there and he didn’t know how to search me and feared being in front of a board in his dress greens and being kicked out if I’d made a complaint. He should not have had to think about that, and if women are in these units, it’s going to change the way men work together. These guys have a job to do and simply work differently when there are no women around and shouldn’t have to be thinking about doing things in a certain way so they don’t get harassment complaints. They’re the best we have–we need them to stay that way–and they don’t need added distractions. There are other ways for women to honorably serve.

  • Marvin Nichols

    As long as the women can meet the requirements they should be eligible for any service. By the way, I notice women are still not required to sign up for the draft, but men are. Isn’t this discrimination? Men are still required even if there is no longer a draft.

  • JTAC

    I’m going to open up at straight up can of worm here. First in order to allow female in the military the standards had to be lowered. In general special considerations will breed resentment towards those who cannot meet the same standards since almost every job women have gone in to had to have a separate standard for women I fail to see the military doing any different in the Special side of the house because it will be come a numbers game and quality vs quantity will reveal its ugly head. Another factor not very often consider is the female body, once a month women can be irrational and hormonally challenged and that is not what you want in a fire fight. I wouldn’t want cramps will getting shot at it fun and enough on a good day. When we deploy its in small teams in obscure locations what do you think would happen in this environment when guys and girls are alone (birds and the bee’s)ahem, worse your put a female in a alpha male hard charging pool and let’s face it; sexual assault has been on the rise the last almost decade in the military. These are real problems, combat is not a picnic and not a movie I don’t want someone who can’t carry my ass out with body armor full kit and loaded for a fight I’m anywere between 250- 285 lbs fully load and I have fireman’s carry a few brothers of the X in a bullets flying – kick down brawl. I just don’t see many females hacking that sh*tstorm pardon my “French”. The cost will be in the live’s of your brothers, your son’s, your father’s, that come home in a body bag because someone made the cut because of their gender not the ability. I’m sorry if this hits a hard place but its a scary truth that lives depend on. Not a fairy tale cold hard facts. There are some females out there that can hack the tuff stuff but let’s say that bad ass chick does make it what happens if she gets pregnant down range…..ops just stop right? Nope, now you left your team short handed, a replacement needs to come from somewhere. Feminine hygiene would be serious headache in the third world holes I have been to, I wouldn’t want it. Bottom line here for me I just think this going to be a sad if lives are lost due political correctness.

  • James

    As a combat Recon Marine serving during Vietnam being in great physical and mental shape is a must but when confronting hardcore enemy on a continuous occasions it is not only over powering on ones mind it may be so overwhelming a female may not be able to adapt under heavy combat conditions. Considering during one tour of duty a team may run as many as 30 long range missions, contacts could be 80 to 90 percent of those missions. Contacts in most occasions are as close as 20 feet or less with enemy out numbering a small team ten to one at times resulting at times in hand to hand combat. I’m not saying their are not females who can’t do the job just saying when in heavy combat it is beyond any training one can imagine. Remember there is no room for mistakes, it only takes one and the team is wiped out. Every person in the team must know each teanmembers job flawlessly working as a team. Anything less can result in mission failed and loss of team mates. Good luck, Semper Fi pointman team 3charlie1 Vietnam 1967-68-69.

  • CAR

    Just saw a video of woman in week one of Ranger School. It appeared that one woman was unable to make it up the rope climb. I seem to remember having to complete every obstacle as one of the many requirements to get my Tab. Looks like the standards have already been lowered.