Serve and Protect
BBC NEWS: US rejects ban on women in combat: "Republicans in the US Congress have ditched a flat ban on women in combat.
The House Armed Services Committee watered down proposals which would stop women from serving in support teams which back up front-line combat troops.
Advocates of the plan say the women get too close to the fighting, but the US army, facing problems with recruitment, was opposed to the move.
Senior officers said they would have had to pull 22,000 female soldiers out of their jobs to replace them with men.
They also warned of damage to morale, with the army's vice-chief of staff saying in a letter that the plan 'would cause confusion in the ranks'.
So which do you think is the more pressing reason?
BBC NEWS: US rejects ban on women in combat: "Republicans in the US Congress have ditched a flat ban on women in combat.
The House Armed Services Committee watered down proposals which would stop women from serving in support teams which back up front-line combat troops.
Advocates of the plan say the women get too close to the fighting, but the US army, facing problems with recruitment, was opposed to the move.
Senior officers said they would have had to pull 22,000 female soldiers out of their jobs to replace them with men.
They also warned of damage to morale, with the army's vice-chief of staff saying in a letter that the plan 'would cause confusion in the ranks'.
So which do you think is the more pressing reason?
posted by -idogcow at 9:49 AM
1 Comments:
how about NO troops in Iraq - that would cut down the number of soldier in harms way, eh?
Post a Comment
<< Home