Women in Combat

[Unregistered]

Over the years it has been repeated statements; women should not be in combat. A woman in combat slows the men doing their jobs. A woman in any dangerous job is risking too much. With all this said where is a place of a woman, at home raising the children? No one can really answer that question without getting into a debate. Yet we have seen more women become the most successful business person in corporate, we have seen them become some of the best movie stars, and we have even seen them become a successful doctor, lawyer, minister, firefighters, and more. Therefore why is it that still in today’s world we still judge those women who are in the front line? In the early 1940’s more than 59,000 American female nurses served in the Army Nurse Corps during World War II. Nurses worked closer to the front lines than they ever had before (Bellafaire p1). During this time it was not a question as to why women were serving to help.
The debate in today’s world of women in combat is because of all the headlines it makes. Women have been a part of combat for a long time now, and they will continue to be part of combat until the ends of time. Therefore, what is combat? Combat is constant battle; a struggle for supremacy. Thus where does this battle begin in a woman’s life? The battle is not only in the environment of war, but also in the back streets of where they live or raise their families. A woman is in combat with an abusive spouse, or they are in combat living in low income housing because they are barely making ends meet. They are also in battle when they are protecting their children. So why is it such a hard concept when we say “Women in Combat?”
Think about the constant debate about women in combat, most of the time it is asked for the opinion of men, and most of the time they think of someone close to them.
For instant, their views are of a mother, a daughter, a sister or a wife and the first thought is to protect them. A number of them believe that women in combat makes it harder for them to focus, and some even think that a woman is too emotional and cannot perform her duty as a soldier. Nevertheless, women have been the moral fiber or some one’s existences, because no matter if at home or on the battle field they are still in combat.
Let’s look back to the Civil War in 1861- 1865, women were part of the civil war and have been Prisoners of War (POW) then (Wilson. web. 1996). It was not publicized as it is now, but the women went through great lengths to help when they could. The stories of women spies are filled with suspense and seduction, treachery and trickery, romance and bravery. Women took enormous risks and achieved remarkable results often in ways men could not (Winkler 2010 p4). These were some of the women in combat. These numerous women of the Civil War did a lot, and most times they were not seen as a quandary or a disadvantage, they were seen as victorious and talented. Again we come back to this day in age, when we heard of Rhonda Cornum capture during the Gulf War in 1992, then later in 2007 Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch were captured in the Iraq War. As a result it is seen as a weakening for a female to be in combat.
However, what about the bravery of the women who are fire pilots and fights the battles in the frontlines that will protect herself her country. These are women who are recognize with medals and are highly appreciated by men and country. Think about the battle they had to go through and the recognition they received for being a woman in combat. These are the women whom we think of when we think of a woman in combat. Yet we still hear several say she was not recognized as a decorated soldier, because she was a woman. Why is it such a debate with everyone that a woman is in the battlefield with her colleagues?
Then we have those who will see a woman as a battle buddy there to protect them when they need to get sleep in a trench of a rough terrain. These are the ones that others will say if my life depends on them, then I trust she will be there to protect me. These are the ones we hope will speak freely and say a woman in combat is a woman who will protect me as I will protect her.
In conclusion to “Women in Combat”, history has shown that women have already been in combat, only not recognized as they should be with their fellow colleague. Women make up 14.6 percent of the military; they and minority member still are underrepresented in leadership posts (Miles. web. 2011). Women seem to be needed more in this war of Afghanistan since they are used to build the trust of Afghan Women. The military believes that the Afghan women will be able to provide them with Intel of the local terrorist. This would not be done with male chaperones, because of their culture. Therefore, we can see that women are needed in combat now and then. Women have been in many kinds of combat. Some just cannot see past the history of men only in combat. However, I do believe that women will someday be a part of all jobs in the military forces, and this will show the world that women, like men can do the job.

References

Captain Barbara A. Wilson, USAF (Ret), 1996 to date, copyright unless otherwise noted content http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/prisoners.html

Definition of Combat http://www.dictionary.net/combat

Donna Miles. (2011, January). Commission to recommend lifting ban on women in combat :[1]. U.S. Department of Defense Information / FIND,***[insert pages]***. Retrieved January 29, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2243559201).

H. Donald Winkler (September 1, 2010) Stealing Secrets ISBN-10: 1402242743
ISBN-13: 978-1402242748 United StatesHistoryCivil War, 1861-1865Participation, Female. 2. United StatesHistoryCivil War, 1861-1865Women. 3. United StatesHist Civil War, 1861-1865Secret service. 4. United StatesHistoryCivil War, 1861-1865Biography. 5. Women spiesUnited StatesBiography. 6. Women spiesConfederate States of AmericaBiography. I. Title

Judith A. Bellafaire, Army Nurse Corps in World War II, U.S. Army Center of Military History http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/72-14/72-14.HTM



Military Women Published on 08-23-2010 http://www.militarywoman.org/forums/...-Join-our-team

[LTC William E. Bailey]

You make several assumptions, a number of unfounded assertions, and several completely wrong analogies in your post. I will attempt to correct the worst of them in my answer, although I cannot hope to correct everything you've written that is a complete misconception.

Direct ground combat has a very specific meaning, with regard to whether women in the US military should be permitted to actively engage in it. It is not "with an abusive spouse, or...in low income housing because they are barely making ends meet." The definition of direct ground combat by DOD is: "engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force's personnel." This combat takes place "well forward on the battlefield while locating and closing with the enemy to defeat them with fire and maneuver, or shock effect." This is not the kinds of "combat" referred to in your post, in which women have been engaged throughout history.

The rule against allowing women into these assignments is not, as you assert, because "A woman in any dangerous job is risking too much." It is accepted that every soldier assumes the same risks when they put on the uniform. There are many places for women in and out of the military that do not place our country or its military at risk.

Women are valuable members of the US military, especially in PKO and CT operations as in Afghanistan, where Muslim religious concerns must be taken into consideration if we hope to be effective at transitioning out of that arena and allow Afghani units to pick up where we left off. These operations, which have been ongoing now for more than ten years, are not the primary combat mission of the US military. They are an anomalie, and not at all respective of what is taught or trained for by the ground forces of the US military. The mission of the US military is to protect and defend the US from all enemies, and to meet with and destroy those enemies in combat. The fact that this conflict in Afghanistan has no front lines has been made an issue among those claiming women cannot be placed far from the "forward areas" because there are nothing but forward areas. Forgetting, that the deployment itself is to a forward area.

Your assumption that US military women in Afghanistan are not chaperoned by men is completely wrong, in that US women are not working unilaterally but instead are assigned to US military units, down to squad level, in order to help the unit conduct its mission, and those squads are made up of men.

So what are the real reasons women are not permitted in direct ground combat units..? The reasons for continuing the ground combat exclusion policy were explained in a 1994 DOD news briefing announcing the opening of 80,000 new military positions to servicewomen. At the briefing, DOD officials said they believed that "integrating women into ground combat units would not contribute to the readiness and effectiveness of those units" due to the nature of direct ground combat, and the way individuals need to perform under those conditions. The DOD official providing the briefing said that physical strength and stamina, living conditions, and lack of public support for women in ground combat were some of the issues considered.

The number of US Army positions actually closed to women, according to a review conducted in 1998, was 145,000, or about 29% of the Army's fiscal year 1998 active force authorized personnel end strength of 495,000. These closures include occupations in the Combat Arms fields of Infantry, Armor, and Special Forces. The remaining closures include occupations in the Combat Arms fields of Combat Engineer, Field Artillery, and Air Defense Artillery that are required to collocate and remain with direct ground combat units. In addition, a few occupational fileds in petroluem and water, maintenance and transportation although open to women are closed at certain unit levels because they collocate with direct ground combat units.

The Navy has closed all submariner occupations to women for reasons of living arrangements, which have nothing to do with combat effectiveness. However, all US Navy SEAL positions are closed to women. Thus the Navy has 9% of its duty positions closed to women. In the Air Force only those occupations working directly with Special Operations Forces missions or Pararescue are closed to women, for less than 1% of the total.

The US Army already knows what would happen if those positions presently closed to women were to be opened. There is a body of authoritative evidence called exercise physiology that has shown that women are physically inferior to males, and thus not as capable of conducting modern ground combat which requires huge amounts of physical strength and stamina. Women have been provided an opportunity to prove they are physically qualified in a variety of studies and instead have proven themselves unqualified over and over.

Direct ground combat is incredibly physically exhaustive, far more debilitating than any other endeavor. Women do not compete with men in the Olympics, or in basketball, football, baseball, tennis, hockey, wrestling, or any other physical endeavor because they are manifestly weaker than men given the same training. The justification for keeping women from these ground combat positions is partially about their physical ability, but that is not the only reason. If US Army soldiers fought as individuals then their individual physical abilities might provide justification to allow them entry into these positions, but that isn't the way of things. US Army soldiers fight as members of a team, and the glue which holds a team together in combat is esprit-de-corps. In an atmosphere of sexual tension there would be less male bonding, and less esprit-de-corps. Units that have women find they have more cases of in-discipline, fraternization, jealousy, perceived or real favoritism, harassment, sexual liaisons, and protecting the perceived weaker sex, sometimes to the detriment of the mission. When this takes place in a Combat Support or Combat Service Support unit it is a problem, but in a Combat Arms unit it would mean that people would die, because they would be distracted. In combat distractions get you killed. These distractions would occur simply because of the relationship change from philial to eros with the inclusion of women to heretofore all male units.

The US military is not a Jobs Program, nor does it have the mission of providing social change to the nation. The job of the US military is national security. Anything that prevents the military from legally achieving their mission, or reducing their effectiveness in combat must be considered non-essential.

[MAXINE MEADOWS]

LTC Bailey,

Sir, you act like when combat is opened to women..because it will be. That a bunch of little girls are going to be linning up for the job. We are talking about military professionals (women) who will try out and train with the male military professionals. Which ever professional makes the cut, great regardless of gender.

Its only fair. It allows women to lead and gives them respect among the male professionals.

How can we as a Nation honestly (and un-ignorantly) state that half of our species (women) are not allowed to attempt to do something??? That would imply that something is impossible. Well, in my 15 years of military training, fighting in 2 wars I have come to know that nothing through and with God is impossible.

[LTC William E. Bailey]

[

LTC Bailey,

Sir, you act like when combat is opened to women..because it will be. That a bunch of little girls are going to be linning up for the job.

No, if you read my post more carefully you'll see that I make no such assertion. I have never suggested that there are a small number of women who might be able to meet the physical standards of modern ground combat. What I point out is that even if they could meet the mimimum standards it would still change the relationships in small unit operations from one of philial to eros. This change would cause esprit-de-corps to be reduced and would be a distraction, which could get people killed.

We are talking about military professionals (women) who will try out and train with the male military professionals.

I would expect we only military professionals to be in our military.

Which ever professional makes the cut, great regardless of gender.

This is where the argument that "if women make the cut so be it, just give them the chance" falls apart. The science of exercise physiology already tells us that women have less than half of the lean muscle mass of men, and less than 60% of the endurance, and it doesn't matter how much training they get. We could spend a year or more getting women volunteers into the necessary shape, but if we gave that same training to men, they would out distance the women by even greater distances.

If women fail to meet the mimum standards the standards will be lowered, as they were in Basic Airborne Training, until there are no recognizable standards. What standard would survive..? In Special Forces qualification students are required to carry a 60-lb rucksack, weapon, LBE and water for 20 miles in less than 8 hours. What happens when the first group of women fails to have a single success..? The standards themselves will come under fire. Where did this 60-lb standard come from..? Why is it 20 miles and not 16 miles or 12 or 10..?

Its only fair.

The present system is manifestly unfair, and that is also irrelevant. Fairness has no strength in an argument about which is a better defense of our national security. What about the morbidly obese..? I'm sure it's unfair to keep them out of uniform too..? What about the blind, and the deaf, and the mentally challenged..? I'm sure the enlistment standards are unfair to all these groups, but that too is irrelevant to what is best for our national security.

It allows women to lead and gives them respect among the male professionals.

The purpose of modern ground combat is not to give women a chance ot lead nor is it to provide them respect among male professionals. The purpose of modern ground combat it to defend this nation and to protect our friends and allies, in a hostile world. Anything that limits the success of that mission is unnecessary.

How can we as a Nation honestly (and un-ignorantly) state that half of our species (women) are not allowed to attempt to do something???

Easily. We know that the vast majority of women are physically unqualified for modern ground combat by the science of exercise physiology. We know that esprit-de-corps would be reduced by the introduction of women into all male units. And we know that the only arguments for allowing this unnecessary change are social change, improving respect, fairness and opportunities to lead which have nothing to do with national security the change should be resolutely resisted.

That would imply that something is impossible. Well, in my 15 years of military training, fighting in 2 wars I have come to know that nothing through and with God is impossible.

In my 24 years of service in combat three times I've come to know that many things are impossible, and invoking God doesn't change them. Placing women in ground combat positions for which they are unqualified, and which will cause harm to our esprit-de-corps which is the glue that holds a combat unit together will be a distraction, and cause unnecessary deaths.