Flip of a coin: Women in combat?

Opinion by William Wilczewski

One Jan. 23, 2013, an InterWeb article had a headline that read, “AP sources: Panetta opens combat roles to women.”

The story, written by Lolita C. Baldor of the Associated Press, was an “ah-ha” moment for me.

The article went on to say that, “Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.”

Part of me thought: Okay, women got what they wished for.

The other part thought: (While thinking of my Mom …) Will someone now not be born in order to change this crazy world?

Needles to say, this is a very sensitive and confusing topic. In fact, I was more confused than when I signed on Uncle Sam’s dotted line myself and swore to do some pretty awful things to some pretty awful people if the situation demanded it.

I have to say, though, that—aside from one very, very scary situation when I was deployed to Bosnia—I have never really been to combat. I know people—including my brother—who has, but not even my brother has wanted to talk about it much, and I didn’t want to push the topic, either.

Anyway, the article went on: “The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.”

Again, it went on: “A senior military official says the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer.”

My big question, though, is will these positions be voluntary-only for women or will they be lumped in with the needs of the service, too (like men), if their Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery (or ASVAB) score doesn’t qualify them to be a rocket scientist?

I hope my question is answered when, like the article said, “The official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.”

The one of many scary parts of this article also said that, “The announcement on Panetta's decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity.”

Ask me? I hope more than winning the lottery that this whole thing is accurate for AP's sake!

Anyway, here’s more info from the article: “Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

“In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to units on the front lines.”

Sounds like it’s worse than déjà vu all over again—and here I thought the U.S. was on a drawdown after creating peace in the world.

I guess I was wrong—or maybe this is a sign of the WWIII to come.

One last tidbit from the article: “Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel.”

And it’s a crucial part that’s about to get much more crucial and deeper, which brings me back to:

Part of me thought: Okay, women got what they wished for.

The other part thought: (While thinking of my Mom …) Will someone now not be born in order to change this crazy world?

Flip your coin!