Women in Combat--or anywhere else in the Military

[Anonymous]

I spent five years as a race relations/equal opportunity specialist in the Army some 25 years ago. It is disappointing to be hearing exactly the same arguments against women in the combat arms now as then. Boiled down to their essences, there are two basic arguments:

1. Women are as physically strong as men. (Which, because some women are as physically strong as men, actually boils down to women aren't men.)

2. The presence of women will damage unit morale, esprit, and cohesion.

1. The first one is easily demolished, which generally leads to the second. The first one is handled by carefully examining every job's components and determining what the genuine minimum requirements (physically and mentally) are to accomplish that job, then accept the people who meet those requirements, always bearing in mind that having XY chromosomes is not needed for any job except biological fatherhood.

Also keep in mind that everything is always subject to change based on the needs of the military intersecting with a changing society. Once upon a time, Green Berets were selected only from men who had been in the Army for at least 4 years and reached E-5 and above, and 4 out of 5 of them washed out of school. I don't know about right now, but I do know that about 10 years ago, an 18-year-old man could join up to be a Green Beret. A changing society couldn't meet the needs of the service, so the Army adjusted those needs. Every month it is decided whether or not a high school diploma is necessary for enlistment based on how many bodies the Army needs that month.

2. As I said, the first objection is easily demolished, which almost inevitably leads to the second, which most soldiers will say is far more important anyway. Substitute black men for women in the sentence and you have exactly the same argument used when President Truman decided to racially integrate the military in 1948, and the same argument I was hearing from bigots in 1973-1978. And I will give you the same answer that the Army gave those bigots once it decided that integration was the law and part of its mission: unit morale, esprit, and cohesion is a matter of leadership.

The Army as an institution needs to exercise good leadership by 1)establishing valid requirements for each MOS and by 2)establishing a firm equal opportunity policy that it is committed to enforcing from the Chief of Staff to the squad level. At the unit level, it is up to the NCOs and officers to ensure that each member of that unit is treated fairly and does his/her job well. Unit morale, esprit, and cohesion doesn't grow from homogeneity of membership based on race, creed, color, sex, etc. It grows from that unit knowing its mission and being able to accomplish that mission as well, if not better, than another unit. It grows from knowing that individual screwups will be punished and individual accomplishments will be rewarded. It grows from knowing that your squad mate knows what his/her mission is and accomplishes in well, in a timely fashion, and without undue supervision. It grows from knowing that all of you are good at your jobs and will support each other as needed. It grows out of good training. All of that stems from good leadership. It grows out of leaders who have dedicated themselves to acknowledging their personal prejudices and setting them aside for the good of the service; leaders who have dedicated themselves to accomplishing the Army's mission. Those leaders come from sound education and training and are guided by an Army establishment which makes its entire mission clear and which makes it clearly understood that there is zero tolerance for deviation from any part of the mission, whether that part is peacekeeping in Bosnia or integration of women into formerly all-male units.

I have seen the Army change part of its mission and do it well. From 1974 to 1977, I was 1 of 6 RR/EO personnel at USMA, West Point (the only woman). In 1975, USMA was sending out letters and sending officers and cadets to Congress testifying regarding all the millions of reasons women should not be admitted to the Academy. (Yes, all the millions boiled down to the two above.) In 1976 women's admission to the Academies was the law, and I was impressed when the then Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel at USMA said, "It's the law. The Army has to do this. By God, then we'll do it and do it better than the other Academies."

The military is a conservative institution. By its nature it has to be. It does not tend to beg for change. It lags behind the changing society it is dedicated to defending. Change has to be forced upon it, by law and /or need. It had to be forced to accept racial integration. It had to be forced to accept women in the service in any capacity. It will have to be forced to accept women into the combat arms when society is ready for that. The military will fight it as it fights most change, but when it becomes law, the military will accept it and deal with it well.



greatoz@aol.com

[Anonymous]

women are just as capable as men ther eis no reason ehy anyone should object to that! :!:

[LTC William E. Bailey]

There are a number of misconceptions and errors in the post by Ms. Ellesworth that cry out for correction. First, it should be made clear that much has happened in the intervening 25 years since she admittedly left the service. There have been studies conducted, hearings held, witnesses testified, and standards set for all the services. There are far more than 2 arguments against women in combat arms MOSs. The two mentioned by Ms Ellsworth are physical ability and morale. It should be pointed out that everything, including lack of physical ability of some team members, has an affect on morale. But that is not the sole argument. There is plenty of evidence from USMA and other Army studies that show that women have less than half the upper body strength of men; smaller hearts; smaller, less-efficient lungs; less endurance; greater proclivity to injury; and longer recovery times for similar injuries. There is the issue of pregnancy, which permits soldiers to leave their duty positions for up to a year, during which time no person can be assigned to that position. Also, pregnant soldiers are not permitted to deploy with their units, and when discovered to be pregnant once deployed must be returned to CONUS. There are the potential problems of real or perceived favoritism, sexual liaisons, sexual harassment, sexual assault, jealousy, and protecting the "weaker sex" even at the risk of the mission. Of course the lessened ability of men to bond in an atmosphere of sexuality is well understood by sociologists. This is the basic reason why open homosexuality is still not condoned, unless the individual keeps his/her sexual disposition to themselves, thus not affecting morale. GEN Colin Powell (ret) pointed out that keeping declared homosexuals out of the military had no correlation with the discrimination against blacks in the 30's and 40's, until overturned by Harry Truman. Suggesting that the decision to keep women out of combat arms MOSs is identical to the discrimination suffered by blacks is untrue and specious. The arguments against women have to do with their lack of physical ability to handle the jobs; the inability of men to bond in a sexually charged atmosphere (eros instead of philia); the problems of pregnancy, jealousy, sexual intimacy, sexual liaisons, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. The reasons most often used to keep black men out of US Army positions was either their lack of intelligence or insufficient bravery. These lies were proven to be mendacious over and over from the Civil War through the Gulf War, when Colin Powell served honorably and effectively as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You suggest that physical requirements be set for every job and then either people meet those standards or not. This was tried under the MEPCATS program, but was discontinued when it was discovered that more than 80% of the Army duty positions were listed as heavy or very heavy lifting required, a standard of which less than 1% of females could comply.

One other point, I was a Special Forces officer on active duty 10 years ago, and we didn't accept 18-year old new recruits at that time. You need to go back a bit further than that. In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected President and he began the build-up of the US Army, including the Special Forces. Briefly, the powers that be allowed individuals to enlist for this SF option and, after completing Basic, AIT, and Airborne School, were permitted to attend the Special Forces Qualification Course. They were known as SF "babies". Here is what we discovered. The success rate was abysmal. Far fewer of these new recruits completed the "Q" course, and those that did seldom stayed in the Army past their first enlistment. They also were generally shown to lack the maturity required to conduct Special Forces missions, often without senior military oversight in foreign countries for long periods of time. Discipline problems were acute, and the program was stopped shortly after it began. However, the military powers that be, failing to learn from previous errors, have recently reinstituted this program, although now they claim they are purposely selecting older recruits for this program. There is insufficient data to determine the success or failure of this newly reinstituted program to date.