POLICY | women-in-combat

Proposed Policy

Women In Combat

Since the historic 2013 decision from the Pentagon to open all combat roles in the military for women, leaders have debated whether women have the physical capacity to perform in combat roles, whether introducing women into historically male dominated roles will interrupt group cohesion, and what kind of changes in infrastructure will have to be made to accommodate women. There are a variety of answers to these concerns, many of which are dependent on the individuals, such as questions of physical fitness and ability to transition into a combat role in predominantly male units. The best option for securing the interests of female soldiers and removing gender barriers would be to allow women to serve in combat positions, including special operations, provided they are able to meet the physical standards currently set for their male counterparts.

As a result of a law created in 1994 officially closing combat related posts to women, all combat related roles were off-limits for women serving in the military until June of 2013. In a Congressional Research Service paper, the limits on combat positions meant that “under the 1994 policy, women could not be assigned to units, below the brigade level, whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground. Primarily, this meant that women were barred from infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, and special operations units of battalion size or smaller”(Burrelli,1). Today, women comprise approximately 14.5% of the active-duty military in a force of around 1.4 million, with around 30.5% occupying medical professions and another 30.1% in administrative roles. Additionally, out of the 5200 service members killed in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, around 100 were women assigned to units that did not technically see combat, such as air and gun crews.

A number of interests are at stake when discussing the issue of women in combat. Prominent points of tension include gender equality, equal opportunity, and ensuring the maximum operating potential for the U.S. Military. For many career options in the military, having combat experience is necessary if one hopes to ascend to new leadership positions, but with combat positions closed to women, many are denied opportunity to advance. “One plaintiff, Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, an Air National Guard helicopter pilot who was shot down and wounded in Afghanistan, said she could not seek combat leadership positions because, in the Pentagon's view, she had not officially seen combat”(New York,1). Additionally, there are concerns about the effects of introducing women into male-dominated units. Questions have been raised as to whether having women operate alongside men in combat would disrupt unit cohesion, especially in tradition bound branches such as the Marine Corps. Another very pressing issue is the matter of sexual assault. The Military Times reported that in 2014, “preliminary findings of an extensive survey of 170,000 troops released Thursday revealed that 20,000 service members said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5 percent of all active-duty women and 1 percent of active-duty men”(Kime,1). It is in the best interest of service men and women as well as the U.S. Military to reduce sexual assault. Some believe that part of the issue may be related to women not being able to serve in all positions, which relegates women to second class citizens in the military. Conversely, those who oppose the integration of the military fear that putting women in combat might distract their male counterparts, or cause them to act irrationally should the women be injured in combat. There are a number of other factors weighing into the decision making, such as whether to open all combat related positions to women, or to exclude some based on concerns that women could not complete the physical requirements. There is debate in fields like Army Special Operations, Navy SEALs and Infantry positions, where the standards are so high that only a small percentage of men are able to complete them. These issues and more are what confront military and political leaders when considering allowing women into combat.

In terms of options facing leaders in the decision, the essential question is whether to allow women to be attached or assigned to units engaging in combat, or not. Some are of the opinion that women should not be allowed into combat at all because they would not be able to physically perform. This is a valid concern considering that the Journal of Applied Physiology found in one study that “men had 40 percent more muscle mass in the upper body and 33 percent more in the lower body”(Cespedes,1). Some women, however, have already proven that they can physically compete with men when four women became the first of their gender to graduate the Marine Corps enlisted infantry training course when it was opened to women in 2013. Additionally, in the Los Angeles Times Capt. Zoe Bedell shared some of her experiences in Afghanistan overseeing female engagement teams attached to ground combat units, but not technically in combat, “‘My Marines supported infantry units,’ said Bedell, who is now a reservist. ‘They patrolled every day. They wore the same gear. They carried the same rifles. And when my Marines were attacked, they fought back’”(Los Angeles,1). Both sources seem to support that there are women who are capable of operating on the same level as men and physically qualified to sustain the loads expected of men in the same scenarios.

In terms of interrupting group cohesion and causing dysfunction within historically all male positions, some worry that introducing women into tight knit infantry or special operations units would disrupt the group dynamic that soldiers rely on in combat. This would be a concern considering that the military has been a predominantly male occupation since the birth of the Unites States, and even today women only make up around 14.5% of active-duty personnel. However, concerns over disrupting unit cohesion have been made several times over the years in response to proposed personnel changes. One particular parallel is the issue of gays in the military. In 1993, Congress passed a law that read, "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability”(Bowman, 1). Here, unit cohesion is cited as a serious concern for the integration of openly gay people into the military. However, in a 2013 article from The Gazette Navy Capt. Jeff Davis said that, “‘reality, combined with a rigorous training program, meant there were few ripples when the acceptance of gays was enacted…On the day it all changed when we all came to work it was a nonissue,’ Davis said ‘It has been a nonissue ever since’”(Roeder,1). Capt. Davis confirms that with the support of the military organization behind it, people were faced with the choice of accepting gays into their units, or leaving themselves, intolerance was not an option. The same issues apply to females trying to enter combat positions. If the U.S. military is willing to stand by their policies and work to integrate women into combat positions, the units will naturally adapt themselves to eventually accept women into their ranks, like they did with openly gay service members. An issue similar to that of disrupting unit cohesion would be the argument that women should not be allowed in combat positions because their presence would be a distraction for men trying to complete their jobs, or that if a woman were wounded in combat her male comrade would act instinctively to protect her rather than engage the enemy. In 2012 Republican politician Rick Santorum expressed his opinion that, "When you have men and women together in combat, I think there's -- men have emotions when you see a woman in harm's way. I think it's something that's natural, that's very much in our culture to be protective, and that was my concern”(Huffington,1). This is a compelling point that brings to light many questions about having men and women in close quarters and operating in high stress situations together. However, U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard expressed a separate view that was based on her own experiences. When asked how she felt about the argument that women were a distraction in combat she answered,

“‘I respectfully disagree. I think that in these situations we're talking about highly trained professionals, people who build our strong military because they place the mission first and they're there to fight as a member of a team. All of the other things that differentiate us, make us unique, whether it be gender or race or religion, all of these things fall aside when you're there putting the mission first and selflessly serving as that member of a team,’ Gabbard said. ‘I can tell you from my own firsthand experience as well as the many, many people I've had the honor of serving with, whether in training or in a deployed setting, those things are not what's crossing your mind when you're operating’”(Carter,1).

Gabbard believes that the high level of professionalism that is the pride of the U.S. military dictates that men and women could successfully cooperate on the battlefield. Assuming that men and women would be unable to maintain that level of professionalism in combat and to put the needs of the team first is insulting to the ethos of the U.S. Military and to those who volunteer to serve.

Taking into account the interests and arguments presented in the debate, women should be allowed in all combat positions provided they are able to meet the current physical standards expected of male service members. Fully integrating women into combat positions would have a number of positive effects on the U.S. Military including promoting equality and reducing sexual assault. The military has historically reflected social changes with policies that created un-segregated units and allowed openly gay people to serve. The next step would be to promote women’s position in society as men’s equals by treating them as such in relation to combat roles. By doing this, the military would not only reassert their position as a reflection of emerging social initiatives, but it could also help reduce sexual assault rates. An article for the Christian Science Monitor reports that, “half the women deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan reported being sexually harassed, and one quarter said that they were sexually assaulted ranging from rape to unwanted touching during their deployment”(Mulrine, 1). It may seem counter-intuitive to address the issue of sexual assault by putting women into combat positions, positions that will increase close interactions with male cooperators with limited privacy. Placing women in combat positions, however, could help to remove any sex-based hierarchy that exists in the military, in turn giving more power to female soldiers and reducing sexual assault. An article for the Christian Science Monitor reports that General Martin Dempsey, the highest ranking military officer in the U.S. Armed Forces, said, “that he is hopeful that making the combat roles of women official will create a greater environment of respect for women, which in turn may have an impact on instances of sexual harassment and assault”(Mulrine, 1). These strong reasons for women to be integrated into combat would support that combat positions should be opened to women as long as the standards remain intact to ensure the quality of the United States’ Military operating potential remains the same.

Finally, should these changes be implemented, it could be expected that a more combat leadership positions would be available to women, meaning more career opportunity for women. Additionally, the military’s efforts to address sexual assault would be supported by opening combat positions to women creating a more equal environment as well as . Introducing women into the front lines would also help improve communication with native residents, especially local women, who were intimidated by men and refused to speak to male soldiers during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. By opening combat positions to women, the United States’ Armed Forces could ensure equal career opportunities for everyone regardless of sex, help reduce sexual assault, improve local communication, all of which would contribute to a stronger and better military.