I hate to say this, I really hate to say this, but this is one form of sexism I agree with. War is utterly horrible and horrifying. It's bad enough to see my fellow countrymen blown up. I think it's a good thing that we just leave women out of that kind of horror. I think that would be too much for me to bear.

You know we live in interesting times when the U.S. Military is leading the charge on equal rights, while at the same time, the GOP would veto all of the gains made in the 20^th Century if given the chance.

i will say this simply.... NOT A GOOD THING.

it is natural for a man to defend women. and that is what real wars are all about, yes? in defense. in defense of. in defense of country to defend the home to defend the woman at the head of the family... women - the givers of life.

this may be ok for some or many women, but i tell you this.... it will be a distraction and a hazard for the man. i will venture to say that the downside is greater than the upside.

women in combat may be a right fair legal equal thing, but it's not GOOD.

As someone who has personally seen and can never forget what is meant in reality by the term "the disasters of war," I too am torn about this "progress."

This puts us only 60 years behind the USSR.

Awesome, lesbian army here we come!

John McCain's head set to explode 3...2...1

*toward

God help the enemy if they leave their socks and underwear on the bedroom floor.

@Giant Kid: The US Military has always been at the forefront of equal rights, leading desegregation during civil rights (official military desegregation took place in 1948), eliminating the "glass ceiling" (first female General was appointed in 1978 at a time of gross gender inequalities in the workplace) and perpetual equal wages (gender plays no role in pay). Military leaders are now, and have always been at the cutting edge of social issues, as the Department of Defense is the absolute most culturally, ethnically, and gender diverse employer in the world (3.2 Million employees). This diversity forces leaders at every level to confront these issues on a daily basis, whether it be in the office or on the battlefield. There can be no place for inequality within DoD, as "we the people" need our best and brightest to lead the American defense initiative in this ever shrinking world with quickly emerging, complex threats to the American way of life.

On a point more salient to this article, great care should be taken in the implementation of this policy, specifically in regard to our Special Operations Forces. There is certainly a place for all Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen in theses forces (frankly diversity in gender, ethnicity, culture, and language is a strength for these units), however, the defined mission sets of each type of unit should be analyzed for appropriateness of such an assignment. As an example, would you send a Female Special Forces Officer to teach, train, and mentor an all male foreign Special Operations Unit (one of the primary missions of Army Special Forces)?

Most servicemen and women can understand cultural sensitivity and foreign relations through the eyes of our partner nations and through the lens of a decade of warfare. However, it seems the politico and American people do not grasp the ethnocentricity of such an action as described above. Although America may be ready for women in combat roles, we must be careful not to thrust that ideal onto our international partners until they have the capacity to accept American (female) Soldiers in such roles.

In addition, the best possible step forward in gender equality in the military is to eliminate all gender based privileges, evaluations, and considerations. Some examples include equal maternity/paternity leave allowance, identical uniforms rules (with regard to jewelry, "feminine uniform cut", and haircut regulations to name a few), and most of all, create identical physical standards for identical job functions without degrading the current standards.

Let Sec. Clinton go at them!

I'm not a Democrat fan, as those here know. And while I think there were some things done in the Benghazi situation for political reason (on BOTH sides), Sec. Clinton is one tough and smart lady. While I disagree with her politics on some levels, she is a stand up and highly capable individual.

A recent paraphrased quote as I watch the House hearings, "I could have kept the report confidiential like 18 or so others under Republican and Democrat administrations and avoided this, but that IS NOT WHO I AM!"

I know this post here is somewhat off topic, but in giving long over due credit to women in many areas, it is where this post belongs. Back off fellow Republicans, Sec. Clinton can eat your lunch. No sarc here!

The timing of this decision gives Senate Republicans the perfect opportunity to try to reverse the decision during Chuck Hagel's nomination hearings.

If they can meet the physical requirements that combat jobs require, then this is a good thing for this country. Why eliminate half your potential talent base simply because of gender?

Also, are they going to either drop the requirement that men register upon reaching their 18th birthday, or are they going to expand it to everyone?

I have mixed feelings but women are the stronger sex, that is why we have babies. It is our choice to serve and women should and will serve in combat as well.

I look at it this way, If the JCS has looked at the issue and is OK with it then fine. Maybe they will have seperate Women Unit's, Who know's what is planned. Bottom line there are standards and if they complete whatever course, then more Power to them. Personally, I knew some WM's (Women Marines) That could and would kick the tar out of many Guy's.

ANYONE who wants to be in the military, if 18 or over, should be allowed to; in any capacity.

Why doesn't anybody talk about the lack of equality in the Physical Fitness Tests for women and men? Women are graded on a scale much lower than their male counterparts. Women have been participating in combat for a long time. They have been excluded from certain jobs for good reason: The vast majority of them would not meet the physical requirements of that job. Ranger School has at best a 25% pass rate for the already physically fit men who volunteer. What would that pass rate be for women under the same standard? I'll agree that one woman out of maybe 100 will be able to pass Ranger School under the current standards but would people cry "Sexism!" because the pass rate was not to their liking? I would be open to opening all combat roles to women if the APFT and other physical requirements at schools such as Ranger School, the Special Forces Qualification Course, BUDS, etc. remain the same for all applicants.

American Women have already been in combat. From the Revolutionary war to present day, no conflict has not been without women in the line of fire.

As a veteran myself, I can't tell you how many times I was denied a particular opportunity because I am female. Women are denied commands because they do not have the battlefield experience that men have.

While I do not relish the thought of going into combat, I, like many other women who served and have served, were always ready to go when the call came.

This is an "about time" moment, and women will either succeed or fail. So far, we have succeeded in every challenge given us, I see no reason to expect nothing less. Maybe the chickenhawks will think twice before they decide to step into and try to solve matters with guns instead of diplomacy.

Being in the line of fire is different from taking an offensive combat role like Infantry, Marine Force Recon, SEALs, etc. Which opportunities were you denied, Knobson? You know how many men were denied a spot in the Ranger Regiment or other elite units due to not meeting the physical requirements? Women have NOT succeeded as a whole with the task of meeting the same physical requirements. How many 280+ APFT scores did you meet while using the women's scale? Men have to do a lot more pushups, and a lot faster run to score the same on their scale. These scores determine promotions and school opportunities. So, is that really fair???

One other Point, I spent 82-90 in the USMC, Infantryman, And I will say this, And I also know this applies to the Army as well, If anyone think's that Guy's where able to keep up on every Run, or "Hump", (Forced March) in both respective Branch's, Then I have a Bridge to sell. Any Vet on here will say the same.

Women have already been at or near the front-line for generations. Even when they were segregated to hospital units, they were still at risk. What hasn't been the case were the pay and benefits given to them. In today's world, more so than in the past, combat doesn't stay in one place. Look at what happened in Libya where embassy staff members including an ambassador died in an area that wasn't a combat zone. Women deserve equal pay and equal benefits.

I think women who choose to act in a combat role should be allowed to do so, and to have access to the MOSes previously denied them. That said..I really hope it remains optional, because what next..drafting us, too?

I admire and commend our women soldiers..they deserve the same respect and opportunities as any other, I just don't necessarily want to join them.

What an amazing day in History! I am a female firefighter and my brother is currently in Afgan. We grew up together and are a lot alike. I have met every physical requirement to be a firefighter and any female that meets the military requirements should have the same right to serve in the capacity my brother does! Bad things do happen in my job and in war. Men are just as suceptable as females to be affected by that. people should be treated as individuals and what they are capable of not because of what sex they are. Today is a proud day! I am proud to be an American!!

Secretary Panetta’s decision is the right one. Advocates of exclusion will likely instead argue that it is the wrong decision because: (1) women are not psychologically suited to kill, (2) women are not suitable combat leaders, (3) US society will not accept women as killers, targets, or captives, (4) women menstruate and get pregnant, (5) the military is unable to provide the necessary personal privacy to reduce sexual tension, and (6) women are not physically capable of direct ground combat roles.

Arguments 1 through 5 are contradicted by over 10 years of evidence of women who have actually served in direct ground combat, despite the exclusion policy, on the nonlinear battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq (See the Silver Star citations for SGT Leigh Ann Hester and SPC Monica Brown on HomeOfHeroes.com).

Argument 6 is a prediction based on an overgeneralization of all women, rather than an individualized determination of ability. It is also contradicted by evidence of actual performance by women serving in direct ground combat and evidence that some women are capable of the physical rigors of direct ground combat roles (Infantry, Armor, Special Forces / Special Operations). The Services already evaluate the physical capability of individual Soldiers in determining whether they may return to their job after an injury. Implementing some form of physical evaluation during or before an applicant’s initial entry training is the best way to ensure the right applicants get into the right military jobs. The test should be based on the actual physical requirements of the combat job and not on some arbitrary feat of strength. Just as 1975 grant to the University of Maryland from the U.S. Fire Administration led to the development of the Firefighter Combat Challenge course, a similar initiative could lead to a relevant and effective testing procedure to determine strength eligibility for combat arms MOS jobs.

Rather than end the policy immediately, Secretary Panetta has initiated the process for the Services to develop the plans to implement the end of the policy. Advocates of the end of the exclusion policy may argue that the change is not fast enough, that discrimination is happening now, and that the policy continues to cause individual harm and harm to military readiness while it is continued. However, opening ground combat roles to women represents a cultural change in the armed forces. Similar to the way in which the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), required the Services to develop an implementation plan, Secretary Panetta’s approach gives the Services the opportunity to buy in to the policy change and to carefully think through all potential issues that could otherwise derail the process. Just as the implementation of the repeal of DADT turned out to be a non-issue, the phased approach to the end of the exclusion policy will likely also have a positive non-issue result.

While ending the exclusion policy brings more of the military’s personnel policy in line with the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection, it also importantly restores the integrity of the merit-based nature of the armed forces, improves leadership diversity and career advancement opportunities, and combats sexual assault in the military by sending the message to all troops that women are to be treated with respect as equally capable of all jobs.

These views expressed above are my own and in no way represent the views of the Department of Defense or its components.

For more, please see: Breaking the Ground Barrier in the Military Law Review (Spring 2011): http://tinyurl.com/https-www-jagcnet-army-mil-D

Women have been in combat situations for quite some time "unofficially". And by "unofficially" I mean they generally have not received combat pay, honors, or the extra family benefits afforded to "combat soldiers".

I hate war and violence as much as most folks do, but I think this is long overdue. Women deserve the same credit as their male counterparts in the same roles.

It's absolutely in a great step in the right direction for true equality.

Just finished reading Drift. Rachel is very hard on the politicians, soft on the generals and licks the boot in an obscene way of the soldiers. Why should the soldiers escape all responsibility when it is THEY who do the killing and torturing? It is THEY who chose the profession of killing knowing full well the people in Afghanistan and Iraq were no conceivable danger to the USA. What motivated them really? Protecting American freedom? That is a BS cover for sadism. Have you never heard Universal Soldier?