Women in Combat

Let's jump right into it, then. To begin, I would like to open with a brief list of positives and main points as to why women should be allowed in equal combat roles as men. First: It opens the door for equal opportunity between genders. Second: It will strengthen military in quantity and quality. These two points will serve as the backbone for my arguments. It opens the door for equal opportunity between gendersConsidering the nation's historical progression of gaining and maintaining equality between differing groups, it should not come as much surprise that women are trying to gain an equal role in military combat as men. The policies that have barred women from doing so thus far have been based on presumptuous notions of a woman's capabilities and the risks that she would put herself at upon entering combat zones side by side with men. The question, however, as to what the woman believes her capabilities are and what risks she's willing to put herself through, has not, until recent years, been asked. If a woman has the merit, and believes she can handle the risks involved, then there is little ethical and rational reason that carries enough significance as to why that woman should be completely barred from the opportunity. It makes no sense to automatically assume that an individual does not have the ability to do something without giving them the chance to prove themselves otherwise. And, as we have seen with the gradual inclusion of women in combat roles within the Marine Corps and Army, women can and do indeed possess the ability to serve in combat roles on the field alongside men. Women in combat will not only break down these discriminatory barriers, but will also serve as an example for the opportunities that both women and men can equally share. It will strengthen military in quantity and quality. As of January 1st, 2016, all combat roles will be open to women as ordered by the overturned Direct Ground Combat and Assignment Rule in 2013, which had before excluded women from direct-ground combat. With that, 100,000 positions in 14 specialties in the Army and 70,000 poistions in 32 specialties in the Marines will potentially be opened to women. Already there are 33,000 jobs 132 military occupational specialties available to women. What this basically means is that with the inclusion of women, we are and will be getting more soldiers. More soldiers, in theory, means stronger military. However, the more sensitive subject lies in the actual quality of those females soldiers. With that in mind, it is important to consider the methods in which women have and are being incorporated in the military. Women have been involved in the military for decades, such as in the Air Force, Navy, and other "non-direct-ground" combat roles. They have displayed the skills necessary to complete their specific tasks and have contributed to the military in valuable ways because of it. Serving in equal direct-ground combat roles should yield no different results if the female soldier meets the task provided and executes it in an efficient manner. This debate obviously regards whether or not a woman does indeed have those necessary skills. As I mentioned before, however, women have displayed their capacity to handle direct-ground combat. Since November last year, already over 40 female marines have completed the School of Infantry. That number is only expected to increase as more and more women enter combat positions. Bottom line is that if a woman is able to meet the requirements of a combat soldier, she therefore serves as an asset, and overall adds to the nation's military. Thus, with the inclusion of women in equal combat roles as men, the military will be amplified not only in numbers, but in quality as well. Sources:1) . http://www.businessinsider.com...2) . http://www.businessinsider.in...3) . http://www.army.mil...