Breaking: Panetta Removes Military Ban on Women in Combat

Breaking News:
Secretary of state Leon Panetta removed military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions.
KBOI2 reported:

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.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning 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.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • Joe College

    Stupid political move. Now if one gets captured we’ll have to stop the war so she doesn’t get raped to death by out by the barbarians.

  • Ryan

    Are they going to take the same pt test?

  • Pingback: Breaking: Panetta Removes Military Ban on Women in Combat « infowarsusa()

  • Pink Tie Republican

    This is not just Panetta, but the MIC, Choomboi. Can’t wait for the chicks to be captured and raped and mutilated.

  • ★FALCON★

    After watching Clinton puke on and on about policy and referencing Panetta during her hearing in front of the House – it makes sense that the ban on women would be lifted.

    These are policy wonks – not outcome wonks. They drone on and on until you’re ready to slit your wrists.

  • B.O. don’t know diddley squat

    So,this means we can send Hillary to the front lines…

    I’m OK with that

  • brian

    So another step towards becoming uncivilized. I for one thing women are too valuable to be offered up as cannon fodder, and they’re just not wired for that type of stress. This is taking equality to a stupid extreme.

  • lincoln’s widow

    “Can’t wait for the (military)chicks to be captured and raped and mutilated.”

    What a despicable thing to say about anyone who has chosen to serve their country. Where do you traitorous dregs of society come from? What a frikin pervert.

  • Pingback: Breaking: Panetta Removes Military Ban on Women in CombatPolitifreak()

  • MicahStone

    This announcement wasn’t timed to take the focus off of raging Shrillary, now was it!

  • Adirondack Patriot

    Seriously, if Democrats want equal rights in combat, then amend the Selective Service Act to require all women to register for the draft.

    I have no problem with women in combat so long as you don’t dilute the standards to play the quota game. Israel has women in combat and they seem to kick Palestinian ass on a regular basis.

  • Ghost

    it’s the leftys secret weapon to keep America safe, Bil Murray said it best on ‘Saturday Night Live’, 1979
    if we beat the Russkies with a Girl Army, we can tease them mercilessly, “you got beat by a bunch of girrls”, and if we lose then we can say, “ohh, you beat a bunch o’ girrls- ha! so what?”

    -how about Prager’s idea, develop separate all-girls units?

    that this idea comes from a JCF (none of whom ever served in combat) tells me that leftist (and Jihadist) infiltraition of the military is near complete- which means our end is damn close

    DIVORCE! now
    sooner or later you’ll agree, don’t wait ’til it’s too late

    y’knowww, at some point you might want to consider that Repubes are in cahoots… y’think?

  • Lim Lynn

    Troublesome eh? No increase child birth and increase retired single elderly people.

  • Ghost

    don’t get sucked into comparing our military to Israel. that’s dumb in so many ways.
    compare us to Russia, China, North Korea and Iran- what do THEY do?

  • Maria

    As a vet, I really hope they don’t change the PT standard. I believe that if you want to be a part of that elite force, that you should meet the physical standards that have been set for those jobs. There should not be a difference for women and men PT standards.

  • Maudie N Mandeville

    Good. Stick ’em right up front.

  • Ghost

    Prager’s idea of initiating all girls units is genius because it puts Leftys to the test- what is it that REALLY want?

  • Ghost

    every Field Commander knows the history of girls in the military- when it’s time for Action they get pregnant. FACT.

  • Tee Dub

    All calculated to destroy our ability to fight. How long do you think Americans will put up with their daughters coming home in body bags or horribly disfigured? This has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with making the military impotent (pardon the pun).

  • Lim Lynn
    Evacuations Of High Ranking Official Family’s Has Been Going On Awhile, Now Downplays Event

  • RedBeard

    Panetta is playing to a PC social agenda, and not putting the needs of our military first. Shameful behavior, no doubt instigated by Panetta’s boss, the Quisling-in-Chief.

    Barry Soetoro (or whatever name he’s using this week) is well on his way to “fundamentally changing America,” just as he promised.

  • When did Panetta become Secretary of State ?

  • Sam Stone

    Twitted by Obama right hand man Val Jarrett just hours after Panetta makes his call.

    “If there’s one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting women from violence. Congress needs to pass the Violence Against Women Act.”

    Too rich for words.

  • Sam Stone

    I hope to hell no American woman in combat is captured by the radical Islamists. They will be PRAYING to have just their heads cut off.

  • Mama Dupe

    There are women in combat areas already, ie Afghanistan…ever hear of the Marines Lioness Program? Their mission is a support operation, but women Marines are trained to be ready for combat. It all depends on the woman and whether she can physically and mentally handle the stress of the mission….some can, quite well.
    Please don’t generalize women in the military, we have some extremely brave women helping to protect your freedoms, give them the same respect you give our fine men serving.

  • Brave New World……Erasing the gender identity


    What a shocker! The generation of the most effeminate males (with their replacements soo foppish they happily refer to themselves as “metrosexuals”) devising a policy that will allow anyone, including their wives and daughters, to take up fighting roles so they won’t have to.

    Each and every one of them (this means you if you support it) disgust me in the strongest ways immaginable. COWARDS!

  • Robb

    What a dumb ass move. But hey they are libs except more of the same.

    USArmy Retired.

  • Lim Lynn
  • bg



    January 23, 2013

    MISS ME YET? 😀


  • dork lungfish

    Israel has women in combat and they seem to kick Palestinian ass on a regular basis.

    Uh, no. We have women armed and trained for combat here, just like Israel. Israeli women DO NOT participate in front line boots on the ground rifle squads and other forward units. They do not go on “tip of the spear” combat patrols. Israeli and American women DO participate in other frontline operations such as rounding up suspects in combat areas, etc. There is a difference in those types of duty, even though both/all can involve firefights. Most women are ill-equipped physically to carry up to 80 lbs. of gear that includes at least 20 lbs. of armor (and sometimes more) while maintaing a high degree of personal mobility while on foot. Men are much more capable, on average, for such physical exertion.

  • Joanne

    Egads. Now women have to give birth and go to the front lines to fight. I am sure muslims are tickled pink at the idea of raping the enemy, mutilating them, and then cutting off their heads. Gee, that’s probably a good way of demoralizing the enemy in about two minutes.

  • Jerry C

    Treasonous administration ploy to make America ineffective in future combat missions. They know the american public will not tolerate their women being mutilated and demand our troops come home. Just when you think this corrupt criminals in our government could not stoop any lower, the leftist libturd progressive communist slime proves you have no idea who you are messing with.

    Now I have experience of living in a nation that forgets God. And it’s only going to get worse. God help us.

  • ★FALCON★

    #27 January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm
    AUSONIUS commented:

    What a shocker! The generation of the most effeminate males (with their replacements soo foppish they happily refer to themselves as “metrosexuals”) devising a policy that will allow anyone, including their wives and daughters, to take up fighting roles so they won’t have to.

    Each and every one of them (this means you if you support it) disgust me in the strongest ways immaginable. COWARDS!

    Absolutely a great comment – one of the best I have ever read – and I’ve read millions.

    You totally and completely nailed it.

    Great job, kudos.

    Women are to be admired, cherish and loved, not killed by our enemies when we have other resources to accomplish our missions.

  • Ghost

    but don’t miss the forest while you’re looking at the trees

    what is this about? it is NOT about any kind of goal for equality, it is about hollowing out the military. so, after they collapse the economy and crash the system we’ll be susceptible to attack, probably facilitated by an easy surrender.

    c’monnnn folks, this is END GAME! time

  • Rosebud

    My only comment, “THIS IS DAMM STUPID” !!!!!

  • Sam Stone

    #25 Mama Dupe commented “There are women in combat areas already, ie Afghanistan…” “…Their mission is a support operation”

    Exactly. Support. Not front line combat positions. Let me say up front, there are many women capable of the job, some brains, some brawn, some both. Front line combat is not the place for America’s women. Not with the enemy we face. They do not think highly of women. They rape the local woman and then the woman gets stoned to death.

    Most any other job in the military is open to all including women. There is no need or purpose to put them in front line combat positions. I love women and want to protect them from the most barbaric uncivilized enemy America has ever faced.

  • gastorgrab

    I guess the new ‘Glass Ceiling’ is being able to serve on the White House staff.

  • Pete

    This is yet another in a parade of disgusting, glaring examples why each and every vote for a democrat is a vote for national suicide.

    Women are to be cherished and respected. The average woman CANNOT meet the physical standards that are considered the MINIMUM for males in the military to be considered physically fit. Those minimal standards are based on physical stamina, strength and endurance criteria in combat situations. Sure, there are a very rare number of women athletes who can meet those standards, but the average woman cannot – hence the very different physical fitness standards for men and women in the military.

    Furthermore, men must register to be drafted. Women are not required to do so, which means this policy definitively makes men into second class citizens. Women can (and do in rates the PC leaders in our military are terrified of bringing up) get pregnant and request a Chapter 8 discharge simply because they are pregnant, with no criminal charges. Men cannot do that. Another example of PC-driven inequality.

    I served three times in the Middle East, twice as a physician. We had 10 days to get women who came up pregnant out of the combat zone. The VAST majority of the women who came into the aid station and tested pregnant did it on purpose because they wanted out. We were sending 2-8 females home each month from our aid station in Camp Victory, Iraq outside of Baghdad in 2005-2006. We were told EXPLICITLY not to talk about it, and it was common knowledge that even hinting that there was a problem with this was a career ender. Every time this happened that was a personnel hole for the commander losing the soldier, because there was no ready replacement to be sent for months.

    Democrats are either too stupid to understand the idiocy of their positions, or they are frankly evil and forcing these insane policies upon our military and our country precisely to weaken us. So incompetence or treason….which is it?

    I truly have no respect for anyone who votes for democrats or RINOs. Such people deserve the results of their cluelessness.

  • Well, if I were a General I’d love to send those loud mouthed anti-war people there to see what fighting on the front is REALLY like!

    Here’s a list: Rosie O’Donnell (yes, THAT Rosie who says we are the terrorists)
    Joy Bahar (cant’ spell her name but I CANNOT stand her!”
    Cheryl Crowe
    Madonna (She was fun when she was younger, until she started taking herself so DAMN seriously!)
    Demi Moore (Go to it GI JANE!)
    Cameron Diaz (I have never forgotten her remark that if Bush won “rape would be legal”)
    Oprah (she DID make a show about the good of invading Iraq, but when people complained, she did a show and LAUGHED when a guest said Bush “should get a labotomy” for thinking of going to war in the first place)
    Angelina Jolie (She seems a little phony to me. I remember she when to a slum i n NAMBIA and THEN back to that LUX HOTEL she and Brad were staying in!)
    I can’t think of any more, but I am hope someone else can add to this list!
    Any takers?

  • Tricky Dick

    Well lets see. Muslims hate women not wearing a freaking sleeping bag and like to rape their enemies women. What could possibly go wrong?

  • gastorgrab

    Jarrett: ‘If There’s One Thing We Should All Agree On, It’s Protecting Women From Violence’

  • AuntieMadder

    #1 January 23, 2013 at 2:22 pm
    Joe College commented:

    Stupid political move. Now if one gets captured we’ll have to stop the war so she doesn’t get raped to death by out by the barbarians.

    Why would that be? The barbarians rape men to death, too, but that hasn’t stopped a war yet.

  • AuntieMadder

    #42 January 23, 2013 at 6:34 pm
    Tricky Dick commented:

    Well lets see. Muslims hate women not wearing a freaking sleeping bag and like to rape their enemies women. What could possibly go wrong?

    Muslims like to rape their enemy’s men, too. Just ask Ambassador Stevens. Oh, wait. You can’t. He was raped and killed by pi$$ed off Muslims. Too bad he wasn’t armed to the teeth like our soldiers are, even the girls.

  • Pingback: Panetta to allow women in combat? meh « A TowDog()

  • Robert

    It’s more important to have female generals to attend the cocktail parties in Washington DC than it is to avoid the problems it will cause.

    Rather than jump off a slow-moving vehicle with gear on, the women will have to have the vehicle stopped, climb down, and put on their packs before running for cover.

    I wonder how many casualties that scenario alone will cause.

  • platypus

    Do any of the warrior lesbians have any idea what’s in store for them if they are captured by Muzzies? That’s who will be most of the females assigned to combat. Let’s face it, Miranda Kerr ain’t gonna lug no rucksack up a hill at double time.

    Upon capture, the females will be introduced to their male counterparts’ idea of fun — sodomy. That will do wonders for their sense of personal identity, right? Complete fulfillment and total empathy with their girlyman brothers.

    These people aren’t smart enough to protect their own interests, let alone defend the country.

  • rumcrook

    In a tip of the spear fight, house to house does anyone believe women are capable of beating an opponent to death with their helmet when they run out of ammo in hand to hand combat like what went on in Fallujah in 2005?

  • American Woman

    Al Qaeda on the Rise: The Grim News From Africa
    by John Bolton

    Accepting his party’s renomination for president on Sept. 6, Barack Obama boasted, “Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.” The crowd roared its approval.

    It’s now painfully clear that someone wasn’t listening. Five days later, terrorists attacked in Benghazi, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

    Other terrorists in northern Mali, affiliated with al Qaeda, were in the process of seizing territory the size of Texas, and still others just carried out a daring raid in Algeria resulting in 38 or more hostages killed.

    US and Western response to date has been disjointed and with decidedly mixed results. If President Obama doesn’t soon jettison his ideological blinders about the threat of international terrorism, we could see a series of further attacks — not unlike the 1990s series that culminated in the 9/11 strikes.

    Obama has attempted verbally and politically to narrowly define the terrorist threat in order to declare victory. In his acceptance speech, for example, he said: “I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. We have.” By continually restricting and narrowing “terrorism” to al Qaeda in Waziristan (thereby excluding the Taliban, al Qaeda components elsewhere and in fact nearly everyone except bin Laden’s own cadre), the administration hoped to reach the point where it could proclaim the war on terror finished.

    Yet events in Libya, Mali and now Algeria have shredded that budding myth, at a tragic cost in human life.

    By demanding the release of terrorists imprisoned in America in exchange for their hostages, the Algerian marauders in particular demonstrated that we are still top of mind in the terrorist world.

    Read the rest at:

  • this is to weaken the ability of our fighting forces, that is its only purpose. its a marxist’s job to destroy the existing order.

    if anybody thinks the standards won’t be lowered ask anyone that worked in a fire or police dept. over the last thirty years.

    who asked for this, did the majority of the american people want this? i doubt if the majority of women serving in the military are in favor of this.

  • Mom5

    Just have to wonder, during combat, if one of our male soldiers witnesses a female soldier being captured, injured, hurt, does this soldier then feel obligated to put himself in danger for the damsel in distress? How does a male soldier separate out his feelings for a female soldier? It’s only natural, and we already expect our men in the front lines to remove any trace of sensitivity and feelings which can get them killed, during war, while dealing with enemy combatants. Now this?
    They remove don’t ask don’t tell and now this? Something is really wrong with this move!

  • Pingback: Panetta to allow women in combat? meh | Unified Patriots()