ALBERT LEA — The announcement that women will soon be able to serve in direct combat missions in the United States Army has been met by various opinions.

Sgt. Amber Steele, an Albert Lean and female recruiter for the local Minnesota National Guard unit, said she’s glad to hear of the change, but she does have some concerns.

“I think it’s great,” Steele said. “But I support an infantry unit. I see the things that the infantrymen do, that I would struggle with physically.”

Steele said that women soldiers should definitely have the option to serve in combat units, but they should still be held to the same rigors as male soldiers. She compared the standards to those that all soldiers go through for special units, like the Army Rangers.

“If we open up combat missions, the physical standards should be raised for females,” Steele said. “When someone goes to Ranger school they have to meet certain standards.”

There are more concerns that have not yet been addressed, like the fact that if males and females served together in combat units there would have to be separate bathrooms and showers. Steele said she’s also glad to see more and more jobs opening up for women.

“When the Army first started accepting women we had three positions — laundry, nursing or cooking,” Steele said.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in lifting a ban on women serving in combat, said women have become integral to the military’s success and have shown they are willing to fight and die alongside their male counterparts.

“The time has come for our policies to recognize that reality,” Panetta said Thursday at a Pentagon news conference with Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Panetta said not all women will be able to meet the qualifications to be a combat soldier.

“But everyone is entitled to a chance,” he said.

He said the qualifications will not be lowered, and with women playing a broader role, the military will be strengthened.

Panetta said his visits to Afghanistan and Iraq to see U.S. forces in action demonstrated to him that women should have a chance to perform combat duties if they wish, and if they can meet the qualifications.

“Our military is more capable, and our force is more powerful, when we use all of the great diverse strengths of the American people,” Panetta said earlier Thursday at a Pentagon ceremony in remembrance of Martin Luther King Jr.

Panetta is expected to step down as Pentagon chief sometime in February. Republican Former Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has been nominated as his successor, and his Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled for Jan. 31.

“Every person in today’s military has made a solemn commitment to fight, and if necessary to die, for our nation’s defense,” he said. “We owe it to them to allow them to pursue every avenue of military service for which they are fully prepared and qualified. Their career success and their specific opportunities should be based solely on their ability to successfully carry out an assigned mission.”

The decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat presents a daunting challenge to top military leaders who now will have to decide which, if any, jobs they believe should be open only to men.

Panetta planned to announce at a Pentagon news conference that more than 230,000 battlefront posts — many in Army and Marine infantry units and in potentially elite commando jobs — are now open to women. It will be up to the military service chiefs to recommend and defend whether women should be excluded from any of those more demanding and deadly positions, such as Navy SEALs or the Army’s Delta Force.

The historic change, which was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.

During her time in Iraq, Alma Felix would see her fellow female soldiers leave the Army installations where she worked at a desk job and head into combat with their male counterparts. But many returned home feeling that few knew of their contributions.

“I guess we do disappear into the background,” the 27-year-old former Army specialist said. “You always hear we’re losing our sons out there. And although women have fallen out there, you really don’t see very much of it.”

The change won’t take place overnight: Service chiefs will have to develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.

Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes Wednesday on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.

There long has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.

“This gives us more people to work with,” said Army Sgt. Jeremy Grayson, assigned to field infantry at Fort Bliss, Texas. “But they would have to be able to do the physical stuff that men do. … They have to be able to pull their own weight.”

But as news of Panetta’s expected order got out, many members of Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced their support.

“It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations,” Levin said.

Objections were few. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, called the move “another social experiment” that will place unnecessary burdens on military commanders.

“While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast-moving and deadly situations,” said Boykin, a retired Army lieutenant general. He noted that small units often are in sustained combat for extended periods of time under primal living conditions with no privacy.

Panetta’s move comes in his final weeks as Pentagon chief and just days after President Barack Obama’s inaugural speech in which he spoke passionately about equal rights for all. The new order expands the department’s action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army.

President Barack Obama says allowing women to serve in combat marks another step toward the country’s founding ideals of fairness and equality.

Obama says in a written statement he expressed strong support for the decision to Panetta.

Obama says he is confident the decision — coupled with the recent repeal of the ban on gays in the military — will strengthen the U.S. military.

The president said Thursday, “Today, every American can be proud that our military will grow even stronger, with our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters playing a greater role in protecting this country we love.”

In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.

Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines, and they often included top command and support staff.

The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to battalions. So while a woman couldn’t be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.

And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.

Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered, and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs, including some infantry and commando positions.

Two lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Pentagon’s ban on women serving in combat, adding pressure on officials to overturn the policy. And the military services have been studying the issue and surveying their forces to determine how it may affect performance and morale.

The Joint Chiefs have been meeting regularly on the matter, and they unanimously agreed to send the recommendation to Panetta earlier this month.

A senior military official familiar with the discussions said the chiefs laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process. Those were to maintain America’s effective fighting force, preserve military readiness and develop a process that would give all service members the best chance to succeed.

Women comprise about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars. Of the more than 6,600 U.S. service members who have been killed, 152 have been women.

The senior military official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.

 

— The Associated Press contributed to this report.