Opinion: Women to take front lines

By Mackenzie Wilson — Women, through and through, have shown their ability to play an important role in the military field. Now, after years of controversy, women are finally legally able to serve in the front-line in combat.

The announcement was made on Jan. 23 by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. This could open up thousands of fighting jobs for female members.

The United States is supposed to be a nation of equality yet many citizens are still criticized for the color of skin, sex, religion and their sexual preference. Although those seem to be the most criticized aspect in people’s life, that does not even begin to cover a whole list of the people that are treated unjustly.

Finally, we are actually doing something about the prejudice in this country. In 2011, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was finally lifted. To have a law that says someone is not allowed to serve their country solely due to their sexual preference is preposterous. Exactly like how it is ridiculous to not allow a woman to serve in a certain position for combat purely based on the fact that she is a woman.

If a woman does the training and passes the test just like any other man, there is no reason why she should not be able to hold that position. People have said that this announcement was completely unnecessary due to the fact that women unofficially often take the front lines during combat. However technically women were forbidden from holding the front lines which would make it next to impossible for women to move up in the ranks.

Although this all sounds wonderful that women are now allegedly able to serve in the front lines, it is also noted that a plan still needs to be approved by the defense secretary as well as by Congress. This means there are still military positions that may be restricted to women. It also will possibly take until 2016 to actually be implement.

Women should be able to hold the same position as any man can. It is unfair to ever restrict a person based on sex, therefore this implication should have been lifted long ago or never been made in the first place.

[Updated Aug. 7, 2017: This article has been reformatted for consistency.]