Latest US decision on Women in combat

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by RCSignals, May 19, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  2. Yeah...we'll jump off that bridge when we burn it.

    This changes nothing...Jessica Lynch would still have been a POW.

  3. Exactly right. More legislation that does absolutely nothing but get votes and "warm fuzzy" feeling.
  4. The relevant regulation is clear: Current rules prohibit the assignment of female soldiers to “battalion size or small units which are assigned a primary mission to engage in direct ground combat or which collocate routinely with units assigned a direct ground combat mission” (AR 600-13, as affirmed by the Defense Department, 1994).

    The real problem are the Forward Support Battalions/companies that are assigned to the new UA's [units of action]. The Army wants to include women in these companies that support combat battalions. This is in direct violation of the law. The reason I suspect is that the Army would have to recruit more men to fill slots that female soldiers are filling - more pressure on recruiting.
  5. Was she ever actually a POW? She was 'held' at the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Nasiriyah where she was treated for her injuries. According to Dr Al Khefaji there, they twice tried to hand her over to US forces as they apporoached.