Hot off the wires from Gannett News Service:  Top Navy brass says: Women should be allowed to serve aboard submarines, and the Navy is “moving out aggressively” to make it happen.”  If women are allowed to serve on submarines – what’s next? A woman commander in chief? Here’s the story:

Women should be allowed to serve aboard submarines, and the Navy is “moving out aggressively” to make it happen, according to the service’s top civilian. “I believe women should have every opportunity to serve at sea, and that includes aboard submarines,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said Thursday in a statement to Navy Times. His comment comes a week after Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told congressional lawmakers that he thought it was time to end the ban against women on submarines.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, also said he is “very comfortable” addressing the crewing policy. “There are some particular issues with integrating women into the submarine force; issues we must work through in order to achieve what is best for the Navy and our submarine force,” Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of Naval Operations (CNO), said in a statement. “Accommodations are a factor, but not insurmountable.”

Navy Times requested responses from Mabus and Roughead after Mullen called for ending the ban, which was part of answers submitted to written questions posed by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mullen was responding to a question on women in combat. He took the opportunity to zero in on women on submarines.

“As an advocate for improving the diversity of our force, I believe we should continue to broaden opportunities for women,” Mullen wrote. “One policy I would like to see changed is the one barring their service aboard submarines.” Roughead, in his statement to Navy Times, stopped short of announcing any major policy changes. “I am familiar with the issues as well as the value of diverse crews,” he said. “The Navy has examined the feasibility of assigning women to submarines over the years, and I have been personally engaged on this.”

Roughead said the Navy must “manage the community as a whole, such as force growth and retention within a small warfare community.” “The size of the submarine force is much smaller than the surface and aviation forces and personnel management is more exacting,” he continued. Mullen, who became Joint Chiefs chairman two years ago, had shown interest in a policy change during his 2 and one-half years as CNO and had asked the submarine community to look at the issue, said Capt. John Kirby, Mullen’s spokesman. That “look” was not completed by the time he was elevated to his present job, Kirby said, but opening the submarine force to women “is something he has maintained an interest in.”

Women, who make up about 12 percent of the 1.2 million U.S. service members on active duty, are by policy excluded from traditional front-line combat jobs. But combat roles have become blurred during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in which irregular warfare marked by insurgent roadside bombs and a lack of front lines have brought women assigned to jobs as corpsmen, military police and other “combat enabler” jobs into harm’s way. As of May the Navy had 7,900 female officers and 44,000 female sailors, comprising about 15 percent of its 330,500-strong active force. While women have been assigned to surface warships since 1993, they remain banned from submarine crews, naval special warfare teams and conventional river patrol boat crews.

Submariners live in exceptionally close quarters, even taking turns sleeping in the same bunks on attack submarines. Officials have said the lack of privacy and the cost of reconfiguring subs already tightly packed with gear and crew members make it difficult to introduce female crew. Mullen thinks those issues can be resolved. “He believes that the physical barriers … can be overcome, as they have been overcome on surface combatants,” Kirby said.

2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Marjie
    Sep 26, 2009 @ 12:52:20

    This is quite exquisite testimony about the difficulties on submarines which may be the most intimate setting for marines and perhaps for all services. If women can be safely and respectfully accommodated in submarines, they should refuse such assignments unless the services agree that the same safety and respect can be created for gay and lesbian, even transgender persons who wish to learn the submariner trade.

    Or, is the political move to accept these assignments and later resign because GLBT are not equally accepted to these positions?

    Mabus and Roughead may be super annuated and not grooving with the sex scene these days, but they do feel a need to beef up their submarine force, so they can imagine difficulties of the close quarters can be conquered to allow women to join. They just can’t examine their beliefs about GLBT persons and increase the submariners with people from that group. The country loses great assets by denying service from GLBT persons (and women) in many roles.

    Woman are always asked to step up and do the job. But men in positions of power are able to point the finger at them before they are able to accept the GLBT ability to do the same jobs.

    It’s not a clear victory for women!



  2. Matt
    Mar 25, 2010 @ 23:51:57

    Sight. Once again, warfighting capability is being sacrificed for political correctness.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: