.

Take the Polls on the Biggest Stories of the Day

There are two stories hitting the airwaves that have polarized the nation. Both will be getting a lot of air time in the media. Before the talking heads decide what you think, sound off!

In the past 24 hours, two news stories have shocked people and have the internet a buzz.

The first is that General Leon Panetta, with the backing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are announcing the military will be opening every single position to women, including front line soldier. This landmark shift in policy will be implemented over the next three years, and it is the first time in U.S. history that women will be allowed combat roles and even eventually, Special Forces.

There are a lot of questions about what exactly this will mean. For example, will the PT, or physical training requirements be the same, regardless of gender or will it be adjusted as it is on many police and fire departments in recognition of women’s generally smaller bodies? If women are allowed to go into Infantry and become front line soldiers, will accommodations be made for separate privies and facilities in what are often already the most basic and crude conditions? Is this an idea whose time has come or the worst mistake in the history of the U.S Military?

Click the links to take the polls below:

  • Should women be allowed on the front lines?
  • Should women be allowed in Special Forces?
  • Should adjustments or accommodations be made to physical training requirements for women going into combat infantry roles?

The second story that has people up in arms and has been the top story on media outlets across the nation is just as polarizing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after many delays, faced a Congressional hearing on the attack in Benghazi that left four Americans including our ambassador dead.

There were many questions focusing on whether she had seen the numerous requests for beefed up security from the ambassador, particularly after the English ambassador had been attacked just days before the U.S. compound was annihilated. When Secretary Clinton said she hadn’t read the cables, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky responded that if he had been president, she would have been removed from her post for dereliction of duty.

The most impassioned speech of the day, however, came from Clinton in response to continued questions about U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s statements that the attack in Benghazi was in response to an anti-Islamic video, something the State Department and White House knew at the time was not the case. The bigger questions about why this misinformation was allowed to go uncorrected by the president of the secretary of state seemed to push Mrs. Clinton to lose her temper, literally pounding the table as she said “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The other single most surprising statement was the awareness that there were weapons at that compound, weapons that have now been confirmed to be in the hands of Muslim jihadists in Algeria and elsewhere. This piece of information was not a mere question posed, but an understanding of a reality recognized by all at the hearing.

So, you tell us –

  • Should Secretary Clinton lose her job due to the charge of dereliction of duty?
  • Does it make a difference that it was a coordinated terrorist attack targeting our Americans? 
  • Does it matter what the White House knew and when?
  • Would deployment of American military assets sitting off the coast of Libya at the time of the attack have kept the weapons that were stored at the compound out of the hands of the jihadists?

 

Follow the links to take the polls, or just sound off in the comments before the talking heads in the media tell us what we think.


This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Edward Andrysiak January 26, 2013 at 05:38 PM
When the enemy are radicals who treat their women no better than their dogs...ask yourself what they would do to an American women they might capture. Let your mind run wild contemplating the torture, rape and humulation and mental breakdown a woman might/will suffer. In a firefight where capture is the only likely outcome...would "friendly fire" be something that crosses ones mind? I think so. And, why would you place that burden on your partner in arms? Keep women out of combat wherein they are one on one with the enemy! This is but another dumb liberal idea!
Edward Andrysiak January 26, 2013 at 05:52 PM
Before I get beat up for my comments above...I would like to point out the reason why women WANT combat roles. It is said the there is a glass ceiling on promotions...example, to be a general a person must have combat experience. Notice you have not seen a women in the rank of general. So, instead of putting them in combat...maybe we need to change the rules and allow those with the capability to fill the shoes of that rank to do so with out the so called "combat experience". If you are going to change the rules for women...change ALL of them!
Jerry January 27, 2013 at 03:44 AM
I have no doubt that you are correct about how an American woman would be treated if captured but women are serving now in roles where this is a risk. And your comment about capture being the only likely outcome in a fire fight, just the opposite is true. Capture is actually a rare occurrence in such an engagement.
Jerry January 27, 2013 at 03:48 AM
There is a saying in the military that you're job is either in the infantry or to support the infantry. That's it. I wouldn't want people setting policy and making decisions that affect the lives and safety of these troops unless they have lived through it themselves. I think it's the only way to truly understand what the average Grunt goes through every day. And if that means women can never rise to the rank of General, then I'm sorry but that's just the way it is.
Denise Williams January 27, 2013 at 04:01 AM
From a recent CNN article, " Among the top ranks, 69 of the 976 generals and admirals -- 7.1% -- were women. There were 28 female generals in the Air Force, 19 in the Army, one in the Marine Corps and 21 female admirals in the Navy." Women have been barred from infantry, they have been in front line roles as part of gun crews, for example.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »