With the majority of facebook friends being hundreds of fellow soldiers I've met through training, most of my feed is Army news related. Most the time, my friends share funny military posts, updates about what they are doing with their career, or where they are going next. Occasionally you will come across a serious article about changes that are happening in the Army. There have been many changes lately because we have had major changes in command over the past year. The President is who is the Chief of Staff above all branches of the Military, but each branch has their own individual people in charge. For the Army we have a Chief of Staff and Command Sergeant Major who are in charge of the entire Army. General Odierno retired and General Milley got promoted to Chief of Staff of the Army. Then Command Sergeant Major Dailey became Sergeant Major of the Army. SMA Dailey has implemented many big changes in his short time as SMA, changing small policies to boost morale, such as changing the tattoo policy back, allowing black PT socks, and now is going for the allowance of soldiers to wear earbuds while working out in the PT uniform. Before a Soldier could not have tattoos on the face, hands, or neck. That policy changed so Soldiers could not have tattoos below the elbows or knees, and many people were upset about this because people in the Military love their tattoos. When SMA Dailey came into command one the first things he did was change the policy back to the original and simple no face, hands, or neck tattoos. The other policy change he made was altering the PT uniform. It was originally a gray shirt, black shorts, and tall white socks. Now that the Army has issued a new all black uniform, he passed the allowance of wearing black socks with the uniform as well. Those are small changes soldiers heard and were excited about; the next change was one that caused a lot of controversy. That change is how congress opened up all combat roles to females. 

I am very interested in this research question because I am a female in the Army who plans on making a career out of the military; so I want to see how this change will affect myself, any current, and future soldiers. This question affects my values because I am a female who is all for equality and proud to be a woman in today's Army with a very respectable job, but I still question if this change was necessary. I'm conflicted about our nation's welfare before making the military a political and feminist statement. My personal experience is that when I enlisted, women were not allowed to join combat roles. My recruiter was an 11B; an infantryman, the most combat job there is in the Army besides special forces and rangers. He told me the closest thing I could do to combat as a female that was a very respectable job was to become a 68W, which is a combat medic. I happily picked that job and went through my 8 months of basic training and training to become a combat medic immediately out of high school. I loved the experience and can't imagine my life without the Army now. I'm qualified to write about it because I've been alongside males and females in training and in the field and have seen how each gender handles everything.

My first source is Women in Combat: Is It Really That Big of a Deal? by Darlene M. Iskra. The central claim is that not every woman will be able to perform in combat and many will fail, they are not asking for lower standards. They are asking for the opportunity for those few women who do wish to volunteer for infantry jobs to have the option to. Her major evidence comes from her perspective as a service member in the Navy who was one of the first females to pass dive school. The major values and interests at stake for this article are that she thinks some women can do it because she has done it herself and also spoke about a classmate who passed as well. She talks about how women went on to become high-ranking officers and that is great. She is credible because she is a writer for Time Magazine, which an extremely credible source. She also has first hand experience of being a woman in one of the first naval dive classes and she shares that experience in her article. This makes the article informative because it gives a woman's point of view and actually provides a solution. The focus is presented completely because like I said she states the problem but ends with an answer to it. She suggests women should get the opportunity to try and meet the male standards, and if they do they should be allowed to serve in combat roles.

My second source is 27 Candid Concerns From Special Forces Troops About Women In Combat by Alanna Vagianos. The central claim is that women should not serve in combat. The article is compiled of quotes from men in the Special Forces, Marine Corps, Rangers, and Navy Seals, ranging from non-commissioned officer to commissioned officers all in the United States Military. The major values and interests at stake for the article are that these men are all very against combat roles being open to women. Their concerns vary from physical standards being lowered, females not being able to make it and bringing down the men, distractions, how wives will feel about it, they look at females more as sisters and will feel the need to protect them, and what will happen if a female gets killed? Alanna Vagianos is credible because she writes many articles for Huffington Post. The interesting thing is that she is a woman arguing against women in combat. Her article doesn't necessarily need her credibility though. She compiles 27 quotes from reliable men of all different branches. 

My third source is The Role of Women in the Armed Forces Should Be Expanded by Holly Yeager. The text's main claim is that women have been serving in combat roles for years but are not getting the credit since combat roles were closed to females. Women have been serving since World War II in WAVES [Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service] and WAAC [Women's Army Auxiliary Corps] programs. Which programs allowed women to enlist in order to "free a man to fight." Ever since then roles and positions in the military have slowly opened up more and more to females. Equal Rights Amendment was implemented in 1973 when our country was running out of man power so the pentagon set out aggressive goals in order to recruit women into the military and changed laws so the women could fill those positions. The major values and interests at stake for the article who is discrediting women and keeping these roles closed, how the rank structure is unfair and how females got less opportunities to be promoted and were held back because of gender, and when she talks about the war in Iraq and how much that changed everything when it comes to females in combat. Holly Yeager is credible because she is a Washington, D.C.  journalist who writes about defense and women's issues. She uses several real life examples and sources that make her article more credible. Then she also provides further books and periodicals at the bottom of her article to back up her argument and credibility.

This research question is extremely arguable because most people feel that females can not make it in combat for several reasons, high standards, heavy rucks, long patrols, different body types, feminine issues, morale, and they'll change dynamic and distract men. The agreements and disagreements are all the same on the sources I've found, meaning they think women shouldn't be in combat for the same reasons and the articles that are pro disagree with the reasoning behind con articles. These perspectives opened my eyes to question my point of view of whether females should be in combat or not because originally I was all for it but now I have different thoughts. I might need to revise my research question by making it more specific. 
