So they didn't go through RIP? Interesting. From what I understand RIP is more grueling physically than the actual school. Could be wrong but I know RIP is no joke.
You should google that and then select images you will like what you find. Sadly I'd say 90% of it is internet hoax but still nice to look at.
What are you not getting? Panetta's mandate says that the military is required to figure out how to get women into combat roles and that the more elite units will be required, by 2016, to provide succinct analysis as to why women should be excluded if they aren't going to integrate. Then you need to adjust your goggles. There are plenty of problems and the folks who actually do the job, see problems. This is so like dozens of other social engineering projects that various administrations have launched including NCLB. There is no benchmarking, no goal setting, no review of results, and no date to conclude whether it should continue or not. Just send it on out, bloat the government's payroll, and claim victory. Israelis and Soviets are not Americans. They have their reasons and they are also a less effective force IMO. The Mossad is about as bad-ass a unit as exists. And the women who serve? Mostly using their feminine skills as it were. They use sexploitation and flirting to get the job done, not their skills as a sniper.
I'm not getting why you imagine this is a Political Correctness thing or a "mandate" by Panetta. The Combat Exclusion Policy was lifted as of January 24, 2013, following a unanimous recommendation by the joint Chiefs of Staff. In reality and despite the rules, women have frequently found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. 280,000 women have deployed in those conflicts. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died. Several have been captured. Two have been awarded Silver Stars for gallantry in combat. The CEP was lifted in recognition of the fact that women in combat was already a fait accompli. I don't suppose you can document this unlikely claim. Lifting the Combat Exclusion Policy is a social engineering project? Whose project? Who claims this? Perhaps you confuse it with the earlier Women in Service Implication Plan by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Note the section titled Goals and Milestones. Note that the service chiefs must provide regular progress reports on their efforts to expand the positions women may hold. The point you are missing is that women have served effectively and in neither case has it been a lot of women, certainly not all women, only those that can make the grade. Mossad is intelligence/covert operations. Women have been serving in the CIA in that role all along and for a lot more than as femme fatales.
About 20 years ago there was a TV show with a woman who was supposed to be a former Israeli Commando leading an exercise and aerobics workout. She usually wore a military type jacket open in front that she would take off to do the exercise. If this isn't her it looks a lot like her.
It's his decision ultimately....he made the call and he required that those in charge report back to him by May 15th of that year with their initial plan for enforcement. I'm well aware. I spent some time in April in the Women in Military Service Memorial building at Arlington. I saw the ID tags hanging on the sister stones, each with a picture and info about the woman killed in the middle east. I read their bios. And yet, many of the early combat females were attached to combat units due to a shortage of troops and a bureaucratic loophole. All changes to our military should have as their #1 priority, combat effectiveness. It's clear through all the data so far, that having women in frontline jobs does not increase effectiveness, and there was no past information to base the decision on, so that's why I see it as a social experiment. Not only that but it isn't difficult to find comments like this, "Retired Navy Rear Adm. Veronica "Ronne" Froman, the first woman to command Navy Region Southwest in San Diego, said she was overjoyed. "This has been what we've been working for for a long time," she said." Yes, they have but at what cost? The last time I checked, there is not grade test to determine the ability to avoid PTSD. In fact, as women's roles in the miltary have increased, so has the aftermath of glory. "a growing number of female troops diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder at higher rates than their male counterparts, according to the annual Military Times Poll. Of 85 active-duty women who responded to this year's poll, 22 percent said they have been diagnosed with PTSD. That represents a small but notable increase from 2009, when only 15 percent of female respondents said they had PTSD. Over the same period, the percentage of active-duty men who say they've been diagnosed with PTSD rose from 9 percent to 14 percent. The PTSD rate for women in the Military Times Poll tracks with the Veterans Affairs Department, which estimates the PTSD rates for female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to be about 20 percent. Various studies of PTSD prevalence among male veterans of those wars has estimated the rate at anywhere from 10 percent to 18 percent. A Rand Corp. study in 2008 put it at 14 percent. Elspeth Ritchie, a psychiatrist and retired Army colonel, said it's well-documented that civilian women have a higher rate of PTSD than civilian men, largely because of gender trends in such crimes as sexual and domestic violence." http://archive.armytimes.com/articl...PTSD-diagnosis-rates-rise-among-female-troops So when you consider that for women, military service is all that a man does but could include sexual violence (the Pentagon found that an estimated 10% of active-duty women were raped and another 13% subjected to other unwanted sexual contact. In fact, the 2012 Defense Department survey found that 23% of active-duty women had experienced a sexual assault) and a total lack of social reinforcement resulting from re-assignment, it won't be surprising to see women suffer far more. "New government research shows that female military veterans commit suicide at nearly six times the rate of other women, a startling finding that experts say poses disturbing questions about the backgrounds and experiences of women who serve in the armed forces. Their suicide rate is so high that it approaches that of male veterans, a finding that surprised researchers because men generally are far more likely than women to commit suicide. "It's staggering," said Dr. Matthew Miller, an epidemiologist and suicide expert at Northeastern University who was not involved in the research. "We have to come to grips with why the rates are so obscenely high." http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-female-veteran-suicide-20150608-story.html I know exactly what Mossad is. I know exactly what the CIA is. My point is that for effectiveness, women seem to be far better when deploying what God gave them rather than attempting to mimick what God gave men.
War is for people with balls. You got any balls, honey! - What John Wayne would have said in a movie if a woman had been assigned to his unit.
Amigo, I know that you are aware that you only need 1 rooster to service the hen house. What do you think would happen if you filled a pen with roosters and threw in only 1 hen?
His decision, but done at the request of the military professionals, acknowledging that women were already at war. It wasn't a rote political decision. It is a military fact of life that the all-volunteer army can no longer deploy without the women and the national guard. They fill a lot of roles. And the traditional front lines don't exist in insurgencies, the logistical units are in as much danger as the combat units. Nothing about the lifting of the CEB mentioned changing combat priorities. Indeed, it said that positions could be excluded if justified and signed by the Secretary of Defense. Upon what do you base your comment that "it is clear that having women does not increase combat effectiveness"? Is there evidence that it has decreased combat effectiveness? How can we determine this if they don't allow properly qualified women to serve so that they can quantify it. This doesn't surprise me. Post-traumatic stress disorder is an unfortunate consequence of war, especially for those who have served multiple deployments — and sadly, no gender is immune to it. It does not stop women from wanting to serve or from serving effectively. Nor does it deny them any rights that other soldiers enjoy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...omen-in-combat/2011/05/25/AGAsavCH_story.html And my point is that there are many things that women have done effectively in the military. And some women, who have proven that they can take it, can be effective combat fighters. They shouldn't be limited by their gender alone, only by their ability to do the same job that men do. Most of the men that go through jump school and ranger training never end up in the Ranger regiment doing special ops. It's a tab they earn to punch the advancement ticket in a hotly competitive contest for limited opportunities at high ranks. They wear those wings and ranger tabs forever but never serve in SPECOPS. These two West Pointers already have career paths, one in military police, where women can rise high and the other is a helicopter pilot. I'm pretty sure she isn't going to drop that to become light infantry. She already flies dangerous missions in combat zones.
