Women Combat Roles

W I agree with the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s allowance of women to be in combat position. I find it a little sexist that women were denied the chance to not have combat roles. In the article, “Pentagon Removes Ban on Women in Combat” by Ernesto Londono of The Washington Post, it says, “Panetta announced a lifting of the ban on female service members in combat roles, a watershed policy change that was informed by women’s valor in Iraq and Afghanistan and that removes the remaining barrier to a fully inclusive military.” I think that women are just as capable as men. Even if their bodies aren’t built as strong and men, they have determination and can do so many things, even better than some men. The army currently excludes women from about 25 percent of active-duty roles. The article says that, “The decision comes after a decade of counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, where women demonstrated heroism on battlefields with no front lines.” To me this is proving the point that women are just as capable with men. Women are just as much as heroes as men are and just as inspiring, if not more. The Army and the marines are going to present their plans to open most jobs to women by May 15. I really think that this is an excellent idea. As the article says, it’s “monumental.” I absolutely agree. “Every time equality is recognized and meritocracy is enforced, it helps everyone, and it will help professionalize the force.” I agree that the force will be more professional with women in combat roles and not just men. Of course this announcement has created a lot of critics and lots of skeptics. The article says, “Critics of opening combat positions to women have argued for years that integration during deployments could create a distracting, sexually charged atmosphere in the force that women are unable to perform some of the more physically demanding jobs.” I say that is sexist. Women are emotionally and physically strong. They may not be able to bench press