Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

Bill Aimed to Bar Women from Ground Combat

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 October 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.

In 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-New York, 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-Arkansas.

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-California, 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-Georgia, cast the lone dissenting vote on the overall bill.

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

Why does this bother you?
(I note the little angry face in your post.)

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

beause I don't think women should be banned from combat

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

Yeah, that pisses me off.

If women want to join the military they should be allowed to do ANY AND ALL jobs.

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

What stikes me as fishy is that this bill is not necessary. From what I can see, all it would do is ban women from the Combat support positions, women are already banned from front line combat. That guy says that people in this country don't want to cross that bridge - they're not crossing it, it's already been crossed. The Army has been operating this way for 10 years, they desperately need more soliders and now they want to limit what women soliders do more? He also says that this won't take away a single perogative - but it would ban women from combat support, which is a perogative. The Army is made up of a large part women but all of them are soliders, and all of them know that they can die. If a commander needs to man (or wo-man ) a position, he should be able to pick the best people for that position, irregardless of sex.

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

I don't know if I disagree with this bill.
Let the flaming begin.

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

Message edited 5/19/2005 3:35:04 PM.

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

I think of the war in Iraq and the AWFUL things that we have seen:
kidnappings, beheadings, burning of bodies draped over bridges and those sort of things. It is my opinion that public opinion would be even more outrageous if these events occured to women and the images that we saw were all over the news.
I guess that can happen to anyone though...frontline or not.

Ugh, maybe I don't know how I feel about this.

Message edited 5/19/2005 3:36:16 PM.

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

So would this mean that a woman could be in the service fighting in a war and then forced (or expected) to fight, front line--now? What if she didn't want to? Or is it (somewhat) optional?

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

It seems to me that if you are going to not allow woman to be a part of ground combat then why allow women in the Armed Forces at all. If these women are willing to sign up and put their a$$es on the line then they should be held in the same respect and esteem as their male counterparts. By placing limitations on their job they are insulting these woman and the rest of us.

Re: Women in Combat - New Bill trying to Be Passed

I would think putting limitations on what women could do would build resentment among the men in the armed forces...