Co-Ed Combat

[LTC William E. Bailey]

Co-Ed Combat: The New Evidence that Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars. by Kingsley Browne.

This new book details all of the reasons why women shouldn't be permitted into the combat arms, and why they should be removed from combat aviation, and combat naval vessels. His book is extremely well-researched and provides minute detail as to the myths surrounding the political decisions to continue to push women into combat arms positions. He presents indisputable physical, psychological, and experiential data that renders the idea of co-ed combat to be ridiculous. He takes several chapters to explain the physical, emotional, and psychological differences between men and women, with regard to combat operations. He then applies those differences to the team-building efforts of the US military, to effectively introduce male-bonding with the introduction of women to a previously all-male institution. He reviews the combat effectiveness of units with women, and provides unmistakable and incontrovertible evidence that this political decision is folly, and will cause unnecessary deaths. This is an excellent book, that provides great detail and in-depth analysis of this inconsiderate decision to push women into combat arms positions in which they are unqualified.

[purple]

I think the author of this book needs to come out of the dark ages. And I'd like to know what branch of service the author (a man at that) of the book has served our country.

[LTC William E. Bailey]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Professor Kingsley R. Browne is a professor of Law at Wayne State Law School. Prior to joining Wayne State's faculty in 1989, Professor Browne was a partner in the San Francisco-based law firm of Morrison & Foerster, where he specialized in labor and employment law. Following law school at the University of Denver, where he graduated first in his class and was an editor of the law review, he clerked for Justice Luis Rovira of the Supreme Court of Colorado and then for Justice Byron White of the Supreme Court of the United States. The fact that the author is male has no connection to his credentials for writing the book, or for his opinions expressed in the book. His conclusions have been validated by every objective analysis done by the military, and dozens of other authors. I don't know what military service he may have seen. Professor Browne does not rely on personal experience, but instead uses the studies that have already been conducted to present his argument, which is persuasive.

[purple]

For a mere man to write a book on women in combat......i would expect him to have some credentials on the subject.....and he obviously has none. First, he's not a woman and second he hasn't been in combat.

He's a lawyer......speaks volumes.

[LTC William E. Bailey]

For a mere man to write a book on women in combat......i would expect him to have some credentials on the subject.....and he obviously has none. First, he's not a woman and second he hasn't been in combat.

He's a lawyer......speaks volumes.

You write, "for a mere man", are you joking..? Many of those who have written extensively about this subject (i.e. Charles Moskos) have only academic credentials, since the senior military leadership has been effectively silenced with regard to women in the military. Prof. Browne has a graduate degree in anthropology, which provides him with his background in male/female relationships. As a professor of law he has an exceptional background to review the legal issues with regard to the proper place for women in modern ground combat. Since he isn't using personal experience, but instead analyzing previously documented studies and reports, there is no necessity for him to have personal experience in combat. However, there are plenty of people with lengthy experience in combat who agree with his position. I have written on this site and others for years making essentially the same argument he makes in his book, and I have plenty of combat experience...even though I too am a "mere" man. There is absolutely no requirement for him to be a woman in order to have a valid opinion about the proper placement of women in the US miliitary. You don't have to lay an egg to smell a rotten one.

[purple]

Are you kidding me??? You really use the term "proper place" when referring to women??? What are you doing here anyway? I mean, this site is called "MilitaryWoman.org"...........i'm guessing this is a site for women and women's issues. This is supposed to be a site for Military Women to support each other, not for some man to be here and think he owns the place. Believe it or not....women don't need men!!!!!

[LTC William E. Bailey]

You have misquoted me. I didn't write, "proper place", but instead I wrote the phrase "proper placement". The use of this phrase is in regard to what is the best placement of female soldiers with regard to the national defense. The operative defintion of proper is, "suitable or appropriate", or "according to what is correct or prescribed for a particular situation or thing." I was not using the alternate defintion of proper, "according to or respecting recognized social standards or conventions, respectable."

You write, "What are you doing here anyway?" This website is not, as you assume, a website solely for women and closed to men. As long as I obey the rules, which I do, I am perfectly free to post here as I have been doing for more than four years. You do not have the authority to choose who will and who will not post on this site.

Whether women "need men" is not the issue of this thread or this website, and your opinion that women don't need men is simplistic and without foundation. In the US military we need everyone, of both sexes, to do those things that they are physically, mentally and emotionally qualified to do...to work as a team. The US military is inclusive, not exclusive. There are only a small percentage of military duty positions for which women are physically unqualified, or where their inclusion would cause problems in military cohesion.

[niteowl]

LTC Bailey, why are you telling us, the women who are serving/have served & those who read this site, about this book you seem so pleased about? Speaking only for myself, I never bought into the rhetoric that women can do anything men can do physically. I was quite aware of my physical limitations compared to men when I was assigned to, and served in the 2nd Infantry Division and 2nd Armored Division. I want to point out that at least women served/are serving in the military unlike the VAST majority of the eligible male population in this country. And what DOES that say about our nation's fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, nehews and grandsons? Also, look at how few members of Congress have served in the military. Are you planning on spreading the word on this book and your review to all the men I mentioned above?
We should not forget how the military got to this point. There were several societal "earthquakes" which converged in a relatively short span of time which spurred dynamic changes in the U.S. In general and simplified terms these changes included the civil rights movement, the hippie-drug culture movement, and the protest of the unpopular Viet Nam War all in the 1960s decade. Then, in the 1970s decade there was the women's rights movement, the end of the Viet Nam War, with the military being unpopular and even reviled, and then the abolishment of the military draft.
I joined the Army in 1970 in the middle of all this upheaval. Back "in the good old days" there were the WACs, the WAVEs and the WAF. Women joined one of those corps organizations. AND WE LOVED THEM! You mention the male-bonding in your book review. Well, we had female-bonding in our women's organizations. Speaking from personal experience, the Women's Army Corps was a wonderful organization with great esprit de corps, cohesion, professionalism, loyalty and pride.
Once the draft was abolished HQ DOD, HQ DA and Congress found that they were coming up short in their recruiting goals, and this rolled down to the Navy, Marines and Air Force also. So, at the highest levels it was decided that they HAD to have women integrate into the Regular Army and the other services in order to fill their units. The WAC, WAVE and WAF were ORDERED to be inactivated and had no choice in the matter. So that was the start of what we have today in the military and it was largely MEN who led the charge. There was political pressure from NOW which did "muddy the waters", but the men - the Generals, Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries and Congress - made it happen. And now women in support and combat support units have found themselves in combat in Iraq. Though they know they didn't sign up to be in combat, they have fought, and we are PROUD OF THEM. And it goes on. The military continues to accept females to fill units that males won't step up and fill, so it seems. I would have preferred to remain a WAC (as would have countless other women) but the Army said "No" to that. So I served in the 2nd Inf Div & 2nd Armd Div in male dominated units (45 males to 1-4 females) where the sexual harassment and discrimination went on day after day without end. So for what it's worth, LTC Bailey, I believe that the males in authority ruined it for us women, too.
Respectfully,
Niteowl

[LTC William E. Bailey]

The purpose of this particular forum is to discuss the issues involved with women in combat arms units and positions today and in the future. I was recommending a new book which has been recently released that offers well-documented opinions about this ongoing discussion. I thought that those who were interested in the subject might care to read a well-reasoned argument. I don't assume, and neither should you, that everyone reading these posts has already made up their mind and cannot be convinced by thoughtful and well-reasoned argument.

You make several interesting statements about the end of the draft and the decision to disband the WAC. It is often stated that the major expansion of the WAC, begun in 1972, was a means of helping the Army maintain its required strength after elimination of the draft on 30 June 1973.

As a result of a strong recruiting campaign and the opening of all Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) to women, except those involving combat duties, the strength of the WAC increased from 12,260 in 1972 to 52,900 in 1978. Obviously, once the quota limiting the number of women in the military was lifted, and the majority of duty positions became open, many women found military service enticing.

The decision to disband the WAC and integrate women into the regular Army didn't happen until 1978. By this time the all volunteer force was already in existence, and although women certainly helped maintain the required level of manpower, there was no serious effort to fill the ranks only with men. It probably could have been done, but as you point out, with NOW and DACOWITS and MINERVA, and the host of other women's organizations demanding full and complete integration, it wasn't politically feasible.

Although the country had conscripted its armed forces for only 35 of its 228 years — nearly all in the 20th century — the American people were generally willing to accept this practice when service was perceived as universal. However, in the 1960s, that acceptance began to erode. There were five major reasons:

Demographics. The size of the eligible population of young men reaching draft age each year was so large and the needs of the military so small in comparison that, in practice, the draft was no longer universal.

Cost. Obtaining enough volunteers was possible at acceptable budget levels.

Moral and economic rationale. Conservatives and libertarians argued that the state had no right to impose military service on young men without their consent. Liberals asserted that the draft placed unfair burdens on the underprivileged members of society, who were less likely to get deferments.

Opposition to the war in Vietnam. The growing unpopularity of the Vietnam war meant the country was ripe for a change to a volunteer force.

The U.S. Army’s desire for change. The Army had lost confidence in the draft as discipline problems among draftees mounted in Vietnam. It was believed a volunteer force would not have the same level of AWOL, desertion, and indiscipline.

These views were reinforced by the findings of the Gates Commission, set up in 1969 by President Richard Nixon to advise him on establishing an all-volunteer force. The commission addressed key military-manpower issues, including supply and demand, attrition and retention, and the mix of career and noncareer members in the context of management efficiency and personal equity. It concluded that the nation’s interests would be better served by an all-volunteer force than by a combination of volunteers and conscripts. In 1971, President Nixon signed a new law to end the draft and put the selective service structure on standby. After a two-year extension of induction authority, the end of the draft was formally announced in January 1973.

The Gates Commission specifically stated in their report that "an all-volunteer force of 2 1/2 million, roughly the size of the pre-Vietnam force, would require about 325,000 enlistments a year. The best available data suggests that currently about 250,000 men a year are "true" volunteers who would enlist in the absence of a draft. To maintain a two and a half million man force, therefore, the Commission foresees the need for about 75,000 additional volunteers annually from among the one and a half million men who each year turn 19, and who would meet present physical, mental, and moral standards. An all-volunteer force of about 3 million men, approximately the current level, would require about 150,000 additional each year from the one and a half million man eligible pool."

The opening of most MOSs to women occurred before any serious recruiting shortfall could have been recognized. There hasn't been a serious recruiting shortfall from 1974 until 2007, at least for the active Army.

It was mandated from above that once women had been integrated, and the WAC disbanded, women would be placed in many MOSs previously closed to them to prove the policy worked. Consequently, we had women heavy equipment operators, wheeled vehicle mechanics, petroleum specialists, etc. Many of these previously all-male MOSs were singled out, and women were "mentored" into these positions by recruiters.

The women's organizations and elected representatives like Patricia Schroeder helped cause the demise of the WAC. They insisted that the WAC was a means of keeping women down, and right or wrong, the Ford and Carter Administrations listened. It was argued that having a separate promotion system for women guaranteed that women would never have the same opportunity to succeed and achieve star-rank like men. Many female officers were happy to be integrated into the regular Army, because they could now compete for choice assignments that were previously excluded from women.

Neither I nor Professor Kingsley Browne, the author of "Co-Ed Combat", have written that women don't belong in the US military. His argument, and mine, is that ground combat duty and combat arms MOSs require physical attributes that are rare in women. Further, that their inclusion into all-male combat units would be detrimental to esprit-de-corps and cause distractions which could get people killed.