HOME / human nature: Science, technology, and life.

Girls in the HoodIf women can defend Fort Hood, they can defend America.

By William SaletanPosted Friday, Nov. 6, 2009, at 3:11 PM ET

Fort Hood police Sgt. Kimberly Munley Fort Hood, Texas, hosts tens of thousands of men who are trained to fight for their country. But none of them stopped Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as he blew away 13 of their colleagues Thursday afternoon. It was a civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who confronted and shot him in an exchange of gunfire. For her trouble, Munley took bullets in both legs and an arm. Maybe the president will pin a medal on her.

Here's a better way to honor Munley: End the ban on women in combat.

RSS

Department of Defense policy states that "women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground." According to the policy, "Direct ground combat takes place well forward on the battlefield."

Well forward on the battlefield? In Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no forward. There isn't even a battlefield. We're living in a world of car bombs, snipers, suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices, and civilian airplane attacks. The battlefield is everywhere.

So are women. By the most recent count, courtesy of ABC News two weeks ago, there are 10,000 female personnel in Iraq and 4,000 more in Afghanistan. They're driving trucks, treating wounded, and shooting when attacked. More than 100 have given their lives in Iraq; another 15 have died in Afghanistan.

The no-combat policy pretends that women can't take such risks without harming overall military performance. It bars women from infantry positions, training as armored vehicle drivers, and being assigned as medics to combat units. The latest instruction, issued by the secretary of the Navy six months ago, says that women

may not be assigned to billets as members of: infantry regiments and below; artillery battalions and below; any armored units (tanks, amphibious assault vehicles, and light armored reconnaissance) … or units engaged in long-range reconnaissance operations or Special Operations Forces missions, when such billets are inherently likely to result in being exposed to hostile fire.

Exposed to hostile fire? You mean, like Sgt. Munley? I'd say she acquitted herself pretty well. So did Spc. Ashley Pullen, who earned a Bronze Star in Iraq by running through a line of fire and using her body as a shield to save a wounded soldier. Spc. Monica Brown got a Silver Star for rescuing five injured comrades under heavy fire in Afghanistan. Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester led her team through a line of fire in Iraq to outflank and destroy the insurgents who had ambushed her convoy.

Not every woman is capable of such feats. But not every man is, either. According to a report issued yesterday by several retired military leaders, 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 are unfit for military service because of poor physical condition, criminal history, or failure to complete high school. Wouldn't our combat forces be stronger if they included the fittest men and women, instead of reaching deeper into the pool of unfit men?

The question isn't whether men are physically stronger than women on average. Of course they are. The question is whether to translate that average into a rule against women in combat. The 2009 Navy policy, for example, states that women must be barred from jobs whose "physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members." Why should some women be excluded based on the performance of others? Would you tolerate such an average-based rule against any racial or religious group?

Despite these absurdities, the ban is still in place, defended by the anti-feminist lobby and its allies in Congress. The Center for Military Readiness, which supports the ban, accuses the Army of evading it and blames the expanding roles of women in the military on "the agendas of civilian feminists." War is no time or place for "social experiments," the center argues. "The needs of the military—and the nation—must come first."

That's the right principle. But its application needs updating. Today, combat is everywhere. Even on a stateside military base, a civilian police officer can find herself under fire. Like other women who have faced such threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kimberly Munley put the needs of her military and her nation first.

The exclusion of women from combat is a failed social experiment. It's time to end it.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. Follow him on Twitter here.

Photograph of Fort Hood police Sgt. Kimberly Munley by Hope2forget30/Twitter/AFP Photo.

COMMENTS

I don't have a problem with women serving in combat roles if they are qualified. Sure some things will have to change, but Israelis have figured it out.

But does that mean women will have to register with Selective Service when they turn 18? Does that mean they could be subject to a draft? I doubt feminists or non-feminists will go for that.

-- rpg3456
(To reply, click here)

I'm female and I disagree. I think the selective service should be equally applied, either abolish it (because we're not likely to ever use the draft again, just back door drafts as we do to the miliary right now) or require both men and women to register at 18.

I've felt that way since I could read. It isn't fair and undermines the equality of both sexes.

-- apropos1
(To reply, click here)

As a veteran, I'm not opposed to women in combat, with one proviso -- the women have to meet the same physical fitness standards as the men serving in those combat units.

Currently, for a male Soldier age 17-21 those standards are (Minimums, to pass the physical training test):

59 push-ups in two minutes

58 sit-ups in two minutes

Running two miles in 16 minutes or less

For a female Soldier age 17-21 they are:

19 push-ups

37 sit-ups

Run two miles in 19 minutes or less.

Saletan places a lot of emphasis on asymmetrical conflicts, but the fact remains that an Army unit can move only as fast as its slowest member, and can carry on average, much less combat materiel if it doesn't have a similar strength ability among all its members. No one is saying that women shouldn't be armed -- but can they be as effective on patrol as their male counterparts? Obviously not. They can't carry as much weight or move as fast.

Do away with the double standard. Otherwise, keep women out of combat units -- they are literally not fit to be there.

-- trapdoor
(To reply, click here)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES