Pro/Con: Should women serve in combat?

Feb. 4, 2013 at 6:04 p.m.
Updated Feb. 3, 2013 at 8:04 p.m.

Before leaving his duties as Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta removed the ban on women in combat.

Lifting the ban allows women to share the front lines with their male counterparts.

The move has sparked debate among men and women, both those in combat and civilians, as to whether women should be close to the front lines.

Women have long had roles that were noncombative such as being a nurse or assisting on an aircraft.

The Army limits most of its job positions to men. That will change but it's unclear when.

While Panetta's ruling has allowed more jobs to be open to women, politicians are concerned women have no position on the battlefield.

Members of the House Armed Services Committee have expressed both satisfaction and concern. Texas Congressman Mac Thornberry, a member of the committee, weighed in on the debate.

"Servicewomen have made extraordinary and unprecedented contributions to our nation, especially over the last 11 years in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world," he said in a statement to the Advocate. "It is important to remember with this decision and others, though, that the primary goal should be to maximize military effectiveness and readiness, regardless of the politics."

As the military and politicians sort out the details of how to implement the order, Crossroads residents weigh in on the discussion.

Related stories:

PRO: Women in combat creates equality for all genders

CON: Women need to know what they are getting into



Powered By AffectDigitalMedia