Women in Combat

Remarks from the Fray:

I, like Debra Dickerson, was a female military linguist, and, for Stephanie Gutmann's benefit, the washout rate at DLI when I attended was estimated to be 60%. Six out of ten did not make it. I was one of the four left standing at the end. Many men were not. I guarantee--Gutmann's views not-withstanding--that the military would be sorely put to find good linguists if they excluded women, and there are plenty of other military positions where brain power counts for much, much more than brute strength. With the current shortage of Arabic linguists, I'm surprised that anyone would doubt what women are able to contribute, and the fact is that there are plenty of positions where a shortage of brain power would mean more lives lost. Simply put, we want the best people we can find in those jobs, and axing women from the services would guarantee that we would not get them. I intend no disrespect to the members of Private Lynch's convoy, but they saw battle--not because it was inevitable, but because somebody made a wrong turn. It surprises me then that Gutmann would use that particular example to advance the idea that brawn is the only thing that should really count in the military. We need both brawn and brains in the military, and while the two qualities are not by definition mutually exclusive, it's a mistake to think that in taking care of one, we will luck into the other. A cursory look at a Bell curve should convince anyone that, without women, the military would lose half of its brightest potential recruits.

--IWonder

(To reply, click here)


I am an Army Officer. I am a male. I have spent the predominance of my military career in Combat Arm's units, which remain segregated. Recently I have been assigned to my first integrated unit since ROTC, and I must confess that my fears have for the most part been confirmed. To begin with, it is myth that there are no females in combat roles. As a young 2nd Lieutenant, I was shocked to find a female officer in the track positioned opposite my own on the perimeter. She was one of our chemical platoon leaders, and had been attached to my company for a high risk operation that would require her platoons support. While her military role may not have been one of direct action, she was none the less as far forward as I was, and therefore subject to the same dangers… My current battalion is roughly 30% female. Of that 30%, half are pregnant or on maternity leave right now. If you do the math, we're at 85% combat power before we even get into the fight… To further complicate the situation, there are no 'filler' jobs in my battalion, every individual is a critical piece of the pie, and each individuals role is highly technical. That 15% of combat power lost off top is composed of mission critical personnel. Their loss will significantly impact the effectiveness of our unit… While I will be the first to admit that there are exceptions to every rule, women, as a whole should have a limited role in deployable military forces. They certainly have a place in the military, but that place is in a non-deployable position stateside. As for the exceptions. I have on two occasions served with females with whom I would have trusted my life to without a second thought. Most of the females I have worked with have been technically proficient, but the two exceptions I am referring to, had a warrior ethos. They would, and could fight. Ironically enough, both had older brothers. A warrior ethos among our female soldiers is almost nonexistent. As the potential of our current deployment increased, I noted a strong, angry even, resistance to the possibility that they would be expected to deploy, and potentially fight. I can not justify a military standard on exceptions. In general, the females I have served with, while highly intelligent, lack the physical strength required for daily operations, and the mental fortitude necessary for high intensity combat operations. Violence is simply not in their blood. God bless them for that… Not one to offer problems, without solutions, I have the following recommendations. First pregnancy must be dealt with. Either female roles should be limited to non-deployable support roles, or females should not be permitted to have children while in uniform. While the pregnancy issue is a sensitive one, it must be addressed. Political correctness should be checked at the recruiting office. If you're offended by my language, or by me peeing on a tree in front of you, you shouldn't be in the Army. There are limits to acceptable behavior granted, but short of physical abuse, or extreme sexual advances, political correctness should be left for civilized society. Women certainly have a place in our military. They are intelligent, and capable of working in a male environment, however, social and physical limitations must be acknowledged, and can not be allowed to reduce the efficiency of our armed forces.

--Sherman

(To reply, click here)

(4/10)

I am surprised that Debra Dickerson, who informs us of her service as an intelligence officer, does not point to the example of Lt. General Claudia Kennedy, the first woman to achieve three-star rank, who was also an intelligence officer. I had the privilege of meeting General Kennedy (who is a sorority sister of my younger daughter) shortly after her book Generally Speaking was published, and was delighted to later receive an autographed and personally dedicated copy. General Kennedy feels strongly that ALL military specialties should be open to women. Certainly her opinion is influenced by her own experience in the Army, when she was continually confronted by obstacles to career advancement on the grounds that she "lacked combat and command experience." Well, she finally got that command experience, but still was barred from combat. Who knows, she might have made an excellent chief-of-staff, but her gender alone precluded that opportunity. Neither General Kennedy nor I will argue that relevant standards should be lowered to accommodate persons who are otherwise unqualified for a particular role, but neither should artificial standards be imposed which exclude some of the most talented and dedicated people in uniform. Current Army policy is entirely arbitrary, and it should be changed. If a woman cannot meet physical requirements for some positions, let it be the PT test which disqualifies her, not a policy of gender exclusion.

--1-2-Oscar

(To reply, click here)


Ms. Gutmann, I'm having problems with your characterization of the facts. You wrote: 'indiscriminate use of phrases like "died in combat" (when they really mean "died in a combat zone") or "fighting for their country" (when they actually mean something like "supporting the war effort")' If a woman, in the line of duty, is being fired upon by combatants, she is IN COMBAT. If a woman, in the line of duty, is firing on the enemy, (whether she started it, or the Iraqis did), she is FIGHTING for her country. By profession, I am a nurse. But that does not limit my day to giving medications and closing after surgery. If I find myself in a kitchen preparing meals on a hot stove, I am COOKING.

--Catnapping4444

(To reply, click here)


As a former Navy servicemember (female, 1 ea.), I agree that there's entirely too much PC-ness going on, and I'm tired of it. Too many folks took a semi-good idea and completely ruined it. But I have to just say thank you to Ms. Dickerson. I learned to "back door" a lot of the things that I wanted to do very early in my career. And many of the things that I wanted most I never got because I don't have a penis. You do learn to settle. On the plus side, most of those things are now available to women. So, should women soldiers participate in combat or have combat MOSs? I don't think so, but not because I don't think we can handle it. I don't think the male soldiers would be able to handle it. Therein lies the rub.

--Cissy

(To reply, click here)


Stephanie's coments seem a facile take on the question. Every service has as part of its definition of "combat" exactly those things that Stephanie cites as distinguishing the Army & Marine combat arms, and those things she cites distinguishing the Navy & Air Force combat arms. So, what's the difference? Fighter pilots close with the enemy during arial combat, close air support and bombing missions, while exposed to enemy fire. Naval warships in places like the Persian Gulf may spend lots of time in close with opposition naval units. Certainly, both of these services are stand off capable, but so are the Army & Marine Corps — just ask an American tanker 'bout fighting from beyond the range of opposition armor. By the way, every Marine is primarily an infantryman notwithstanding the servicemember's specialty.

--Tony Adragna

(To reply, click here)

(4/8)

• Cohen: How an Economic Crisis Is Like a War
• Froomkin: How's Bush? Put a Fork in Him.
• Milbank: A House Divided Along Twisted Lines
• Robinson: Ugly Politics at Justice | Q&A