Question: will combat roles for women downgrade military readiness? - Term paper, research paper & custom essay writing service

Home

Question: will combat roles for women downgrade military readiness?

Question: will combat roles for women downgrade military readiness?

by Elaine Donnelly , Lillian A. Pfluke

Yes: Morale,

cohesion and

deployability

will suffer.

Some of the finest and most professional women in the workforce are serving in the armed forces. But would their assignment to combat or near-combat roles improve America's military readiness?

Retired Army Lt. Col. William J. Gregor, who testified before the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, said he didn't think so. For that to be true, said Gregor, the population of women would have to be substantially the same as the population of men in terms of physical potential or performance; it would have to be possible to train women to the same standard and in the same manner as men; and the introduction of women into small, male fighting units would have to have no adverse effect on training or combat performance.

Citing a series of tests with ROTC cadets at the University of Michigan, Gregor testified that only a small percentage of high-achieving women are capable of physical achievement comparable to low-achieving men. He also noted that male underachievers usually have the muscle mass and aerobic capacity to improve their scores, but women at the same level already have reached a maximum level beyond which they cannot improve. Other experts in physiology presented the commission with abundant evidence that although there is some overlap in physical capabilities, males on average have 40 to 50 percent more upper-body muscular strength and 25 to 30 percent more of the aerobic capacity needed for endurance.

Readiness and unit strength still depend on the ability to carry heavy survival gear, weapons and provisions over rough terrain in all weather conditions. These qualities remain extremely relevant in or near front-line units where women do not have an equal opportunity to survive or to help fellow soldiers survive.

Rational discussion of the issue should focus not on any one element but on the cumulative weight of negative factors affecting unit strength, deployability, morale, cohesion and overall readiness, all of which were identified by the 1992 commission.

Unfortunately, the commission's recorded testimony and findings have been ignored by the Clinton administration, which has pushed hard for women in combat, as well as inclusion of avowed homosexuals in the military. Those who thought the campaign for women in combat roles would end with a few aircraft or ships must recognize that incremental change won't stop there. Once "equal opportunity" becomes the primary consideration in the formulation of military personnel policies, the needs of the armed forces become secondary.

Combat, as traditionally defined by the various services, is more than the experience of being shot at or being in danger: It involves physical proximity with hostile forces, an inherent risk of capture and engaging the enemy with fire, maneuver or shock effect in contested territory, waters or airspace. Desert Storm, which differed from most wars in American history, created the false impression that modern warfare, especially from the air, is relatively easy and risk-free. Army Lt. Gen. J.H. Binford Peay III, who replaced Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf as commander of the U.S. Central Command, warns that despite technological advances, combat is no more refined, no less barbaric and no less physically demanding than it has been throughout history.

Unfortunately, the concerns of seasoned combat veterans and active-duty personnel have been overruled. The Clinton administration has pushed ahead with a two-pronged strategy to repeal most Defense Department policies exempting women from service in or near previously closed land-combat units. On Jan. 13, 1994, then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin announced a contrived and sanitized redefinition of "direct ground combat" and repealed the Department of Defense Risk Rule, which was established in 1988 to exempt noncombatant women from assignments too near the front line. The new policy opens up air cavalry units and some combat engineer, bridge crew and Marine explosive ordnance officer positions to women - specialties that involve extraordinary physical strength or a high risk of injury or capture.

Also slated for the involuntary assignment of women are thousands of positions in the battalion or regimental field headquarters of combat engineer, armored cavalry, special-operations aviation, air-defense artillery and even Army infantry and armor brigades. Commands elements of Marine Expeditionary Units, which participate in amphibious landings, also have been opened - all without prior congressional hearings or review.

Much of the current plan, as shaped by civilian lawyers, is based on the theory that since infantry fighting is only a "secondary mission" for units such as air cavalry, and since these units have to contend with adversaries on the ground only part of the time - say, when the helicopter is shot down, they should be made available to women.

Never mind that the Army's own authoritative manual on cavalry operations states that air cavalry helicopters precede the armored cavalry to find the enemy and frequently "perform missions that are the same or overlap." As one Desert Storm field commander put it, "If anything, air cavalry missions are among the most hazardous, and casualties in the close fight may well be higher among the air cavalry than the ground cavalry troops."

Congress instructed the Defense Department in the 1994 Defense Authorization Act to report on proposed changes that might place women in or near previously closed land combat units. In response, Defense Secretary William Perry and Pentagon officials declared unilaterally that the law simply doesn't apply, and that nothing much has changed. But it has.

In the next major war, thousands of American women will, on an involuntary basis, be put at greater risk of wartime violence and capture. Many of these will be single and dual-service mothers separated from very young children. The ground-work has been laid for further incremental change in a radical direction, which is extremely dangerous. Once principle is compromised and priorities are skewed, moves to enforce consistency do the rest. A vast social experiment, unprecedented in the modern world, is under way.

Nevertheless, a few career-oriented female officers, along with activist congresswomen and civilian members of the Pentagon's own Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, keep promoting various double standards and scoring techniques that make it easier for women to "compete" with men. The most demanding physical challenges at the service academies and in many training programs already have been modified or eliminated, or performance scores are "gender-normed" so that a D for a man is equivalent to an A for a woman.

Instead of equal performance, equal effort now sets the standard, which means that the word "qualified," as in "qualified to do the job," has no objective meaning. With women assigned in or near units closer to the front lines, double standards heighten the risk of casualties among men and women alike, because battlefields are not gender-normed.

Nonetheless, the Army has reintroduced coed basic training, an experiment that was tried but failed in the late 1970s because of excessive injuries among women and a lack of physical challenge for the men. The new version of "gender-integrated" basic training, as presented by the Army Research Institute to House Armed Services Committee staffers in September 1994, is almost fail-safe because it redefines "proficiency." Army soldiers' skills are evaluated not by basic physical-training performance standards (which will be scored differently for women) but by nonstrenuous "soldierization" skills such as map reading, using protective gear and first-aid knowledge.

Several field commanders told the presidential commission that even if women as a group were just as physically capable as men, the introduction of sexual tensions and entanglements in combat units - even if the women don't invite such attention - would interfere with unit cohesion and make work more difficult. William Darryl Henderson, a retired military officer who has done extensive research analyzing the characteristics and importance of military cohesion, agrees with the commanders. In the new version of gender-integrated training, "cohesion" is measured by surveys full of touchy-feely questions such as, "Do you ... like being in the platoon? ... care about each other? or ... feel very close?"

Early evidence suggests that male and female soldiers are getting closer - but not necessarily for the purposes of battle. A presidential-commission survey of Desert Storm military personnel found that 64 percent reported sexual activity between men and women in their units, indicating that regardless of the rules, men and women are human beings, not interchangeable machines.

Readiness of women to deploy worldwide on short notice also must be considered, because it doesn't matter how good a soldier or sailor is if he or she is missing when the balloon goes up or the ship leaves port. Women served their country well during Desert Storm, but nondeployability rates were three to four times higher among women, not counting higher rates of voluntary and involuntary discharges because of pregnancy or child-care concerns.

The General Accounting Office reported in August 1992 that in some units 18 to 20 percent of female soldiers were nondeployable, but the effect on readiness was masked by many months of lead time preceding Desert Storm plus the availability of additional troops to make up the difference. With forces that are shrinking and commitments that are expanding, neither circumstance may be available in the future.

Consider the pregnancy rate in the Navy, which has remained constant at about 8 to 10 percent since women were first assigned to ships two decades ago. In Desert Storm that rate translated into 36 pregnant women among the 360 who returned from Desert Storm aboard the USS Acadia, which the Wall Street Journal dubbed the "Love Boat."

Of 387 women currently assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower, 24 women did not deploy due to pregnancy - 10 of them within three weeks of deployment. Five pregnant women were evacuated in January, and 10 more left in February - 39 in all and still counting, halfway through the ship's six-month cruise.

The Navy's new pregnancy policy, announced by Secretary John Dalton on Feb. 6, 1995, will gave the unintended effect of increasing numbers of nondeployable pregnant women in the Navy, both married and single. That will complicate readiness problems, especially on smaller ships, where replacements for pregnant women on long cruises will be more difficult to find. Pregnancy tests prior to deployment are not required, elevating risks of medical problems and birth defects caused by hazardous work environments. Contrary to widely quoted misinformation, when pregnancy and postpartum time are included, women have far higher rates of lost time than men.

The fact is that many women serving in the armed forces don't want the burdens of combat. An independent study conducted in 1992 found that if Army women were compelled to serve in combat on the same basis as men, 52 percent of the women surveyed "probably" or "definitely" would leave the service. Draft-age civilian women have reason for concern as well. If women are to be used in combat units, the exemption from Selective Service registration will be in legal jeopardy.

Demands for change based upon unproven theories or career expectations simply don't meet the high burden of proof required when lives are at stake. Marine Gunnery Sgt. Beth L. English got it right in a recent article published in the Navy/Marine Times, in which she wrote: "I serve my country with pride, and ask anyone listening to please not change the [combat] policy just to satisfy the squeaky wheel, [or to] test a theory of equality."

For level-headed thinking, count on the women Marines.

No: Women have

proved they can

do the job.

It's no exaggeration to say that for 22 years women have made the all-volunteer military work. Women are an integral part of the armed forces, about 12 percent of its members. Because of their high aptitude scores, greater propensity to graduate from high school and a level of motivation that defines the high-quality recruits sought by the services, women have replaced many men who want to remain civilians.

The military has a screening program to match recruits' abilities with their jobs. Aptitude test, skills test, medical screening, physical tests and personal interests all go toward determining a recruit's assignment. All service members meet the same standards in determining what their jobs and assignments will be. There are no separate standards for women or anyone else in determining whether a soldier can do a job.

The only exception is that no matter how qualified, women will not be assigned to certain specialties and to any direct ground-combat units. They are not assigned to any infantry, armor or field-artillery battalions or to any short-range air defense, special forces or combat-engineer companies - not as cooks, not as typists, not as mechanics, not as anything. A full 33 percent of the jobs in the Army and 38 percent of the jobs in the Marine Corps are closed to women. Furthermore, the military does not intend to change that policy and, in fact, cannot change it without first notifying Congress.

Regrettably, a few lobbyists and columnists with little military or national-security experience have begun arguing that women should not remain in those many positions - short of direct ground combat - in which they already are serving effectively. These attacks demean the contributions of thousands of men and women who are proudly serving.

To clarify the issue, let's look at exactly what women are and are not doing in today's armed forces. Recently, Congress and the Defense Department loosened some restrictions not involving direct ground combat. Women now are allowed to serve on more Navy ships, to fly more combat aircraft and to serve in a few more ground-combat-support units.

But keep in mind that women have flown combat aircraft since aircraft were invented. In World War II, Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs, flew every type of aircraft in the inventory, shuttling them between factories, repair facilities and the theaters of operation. Women started flying Navy jets in 1975. They have been landing on aircraft carriers since 1979. They have been teaching male pilots how to fly combat aircraft since 1980. They have been flying as enemy aircraft in flight schools and training operations as well, engaging in mock dog-fights with male pilots. Women have been performing superbly in all types of flight operations, including combat training, for years.

Congress recognized this fact after the Persian Gulf War and repealed the law prohibiting women from flying in combat. This act halted the Navy and the Air Force from the somewhat ludicrous practice of choosing less-qualified male pilots for assignment to fighter and bomber units. The January 1993 announcement allowing women to compete for positions in combat aircraft merely implemented what Congress directed in a convincing bypartisan vote in July 1991.

Women are allowed to fly most types of aircraft in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. This includes transports jets, propeller planes and helicopters, as well as those aircraft that drop bombs and engage in air-to-air combat. Women are not allowed to fly aircraft in support of some special-forces operations.

Women have been going to sea on Navy ships since 1977 and on Coast Guard ships since 1980. They command vessels, deploy on extended cruises throughout the world and serve successfully in every capacity. (They had been precluded from serving on combat ships on a permanent basis, although they could serve there on a temporary basis and often did.) In 1994, Congress repealed the law prohibiting Navy women from being deployed permanently on combat ships. Women currently serve on most classes of combat ships, except submarines.

The July 1994 announcement by Defense Secretary William Perry opening new jobs for women in the military reaffirmed that women would not serve in direct ground combat. In the Army, however, doors were opened for women to serve in certain military police companies, chemical platoons, smoke platoons, bridge companies, military-intelligence companies, brigade headquarters elements and the Washington-based ceremonial unit - hardly controversial stuff. Gains for women in the Marine Corps were similar. They included more support positions throughout the battlefield - but none in direct ground-combat units in any capacity.

Why were some of the old rules changed? In a word, readiness. According to Perry: "Our overachieving goal is to maintain a high-quality, ready and effective force. By increasing the number of units and positions to which women can be assigned, the military services gain greater flexibility in the development and use of human resources. I am confident that these policy changes will further enhance the already-high state of readiness of our armed forces."

The military services are full of smart, competent, well-trained and motivated men and women. The services now can better use their soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the jobs for which each individual is most qualified. On planes and surface ships and in ground-combat-support positions, commanders no longer have to worry about whether a fully qualified individual can or cannot be assigned to a post.

Opponents of women who want to serve their country by fighting for it have been trying to cast these women as radical left-wing feminists. Not true: Military women reflect the military culture they have chosen. They are obedient, dedicated and patriotic. a few may appear restive, but only because they are trying to break through an armored ceiling and be all that they can be. Military women are like their male counterparts, conservative in the true sense.

Did the recent death of one of the Navy's first female fighter pilots, Lt. Kara Hultgreen, prove that women are poor risks in air combat? Not at all. Hultgreen was killed when her engine stalled as she was attempting to land on a carrier on Oct. 25, 1994. In investigating the accident, the Navy put nine different pilots of various experience levels in a simulator, told them they were about to have a serious incident and simulated an engine stall similar to what killed Hultgreen. Only one man, the unit commander and most experienced pilot to try, survived. Landing an aircraft on a carrier is probably the most difficult maneuver a pilot performs. The Navy and Marine Corps together lose approximately 35 to 40 people a year in aircraft fatalities. The Hultgreen story was publicized widely only because the pilot was a woman and because of an insidious campaign by a small group of lobbyists to denigrate military women, not because a crash on a carrier is unprecedented.

It is true, as reported, that in January five women were airlifted off the USS Eisenhower because they were pregnant. It is also true, but rarely reported, that 27 men were airlifted off at the same time for various problems. Navy studies conducted during that past decade continue to show that male sailors have lost time from duty at a rate much higher than that of female sailors - even when pregnancy is included.

Opponents of combat roles for women conclude that we should restrict women from combat ships (or any military position) because a few become pregnant. This makes as much sense as saying we should prohibit married men because a few may be sent home early for family reasons, or with prostate problems or because they hurt themselves playing basketball. The chief of naval operations, a decorated and respected combat leader with more than 38 years of service, does not view pregnancy and fraternization as a crisis requiring congressional intervention any more than the numerous other personnel issues with which he must deal. Why, then, do certain columnists still claim scandal?

The only real scandal is the constant attempt to politicize the issue and to drag the members of the armed forces into an abstract, ideological fight of antifeminism vs. feminism. The only real shame is that those very few critics of women in the military are reduced to travesties such as denigrating Hultgreen and raising the phony specter of mothers drafted into foxholes.

Individual rights and personal responsibility define who we are and what we stand for. A female citizen is an individual with the same responsibility and opportunity as male citizens to participate in the national defense, based upon her personal abilities and motivations. Let's remember what the all-volunteer force means: Any person, man or woman, unwilling to take the risks of military service simply chooses not to join.

Women join the military for the same reasons men do: a deep sense of patriotism, a love of country and way of life and selfless dedication to duty. These are gender-neutral motivations. When men volunteer for and serve in combat units, they are rightly considered noble. To call women who are trying to do the same "selfish" is incomprehensible.

In fact, military service is anything but selfish. Every service member is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom, country or, as was the case in Somalia, to be able to help fellow human beings. Women in the service merely want everyone to focus on providing the nation with the best possible defense and to agree on one simple unifying concept: "the best person for the job."

Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness and served on the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.

Lillian A. Pfluke is an Army major and a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy. She writes frequently on the role of women in the military.

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Our benefits

Free extras

Main Menu

Service features