Women will now serve in combat

Lends more credibilty to the belief that political progressives see the military as a social experimentation ground.

In “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” Father Christmas gives Susan a bow and arrow and then indicates that this gift does not mean that she should be in the battle. She responds by saying that she believes she is capable of fighting. Father Christmas says that be that as it may. He then says that when women participate in war, it is ugly.
On the more glib side, in “The Pirate Movie,” the daughter is going to lead a charge against the pirates. Her father, a retired major general says that with women fighting battles there will never be another decent war again.
Lady Macbeth discovers quickly what happens when the nurturing sex becomes “unsexed” and stoops to killing. This is what happens in war. I wish it not on the men, but especially on the women. Strangely, there are many parallels between this debate and the abortion debate. . .

@2

Wait, seriously? 120 years after the women’s suffrage, the military allows women in combat is liberal social experimentation? What’s the experiment?

I think I have a fairly generous capacity to comprehend where the “other side” is coming from on most issues, even if my rhetoric sometimes indicates otherwise. For example, I can understand where pro-choice folks are coming from. I get my friends who have converted to Catholicism or Buddhism. I sympathize with those who think we should be spending more and not less on welfare. Etc.

But I really can’t understand why anyone would advocate women in combat. Not that giving women combat roles is “worse” than abortion, for example, but I simply don’t understand the logic. Sure, if you’re an old-line feminist (i.e., not a contemporary or “third-wave” feminist), equality is only achieved when, well, men and women are of equal status, for better or worse.

Nevertheless, beyond that, I can conceive of no good reason, pragmatic or philosophical, to agitate for women in combat. None–except, perhaps, for the sheer need for expendable bodies (cannon fodder may as well be gender-inclusive, yes?). Pragmatically, women are, statistically speaking, a burden in terms of their physical endurance and their capacity to perform the same tasks routinely required of men in combat. Moreover, their admixture in male regiments is obviously not going to mitigate problems of discipline and license.

Philosophically, though, the presence of women in combat signifies that there are vanishingly few classes of people recognized in society that are worthy of protection. That is, we seem to have lost the plot altogether. For the common soldier, war has always been about defending wife and children, home and hearth. But now your “wife” is right there, as likely to be slaughtered as you are (and, presumably, you don’t have children, since the women are at war too). What is left to fight for? Nothing meaningful, that’s for sure, War is now a profession, a career, not a noble attempt to defend anything worthwhile. No life is sacred.

And again, unless you’re an old-line feminist–and there aren’t very many of those remaining–what has been gained here?

Unit readiness and combat effectiveness are affected not just by sexual attraction between the boys and the girls, but the near-universal tendency of males, regardless of upbringing, to try to protect proximate females when attacked.
I remember reading about how a number of the bodies of the post-modern, guyland male victims of the Colorado theater shooting were found in shielding stances around the females next to them – in more than one case, not even a wife or long-term girlfriend, just some girl bud he went to see Batman with.
The harsh reality of small-unit infantry combat is that the mission must come before even the safety of your buddies. Do we think that missions won’t be compromised by male soldiers violating the assault plan because they perceive female unit members to be in danger?

It sure would be interesting to see some actual data on the performance of females in the military. I bet it is far poorer on average than the average performance of males. Females in the military are superfluous. Sure, you can use them for a few things. But on average it takes two of them to do the work of one man. And then there is all the drama. And the men still have to do all of the stuff that really has to get done. So women in the military is mostly cosmetic. It looks better to those who want to believe the fantasy of women as functionally identical to men.

absolutely disgusting. As a rule of thumb men have always gone to war to protect women and children. Now we have women going to war to protect men? This is sick.
But even more sick is what has led up to this. The draft was done away with, and military service became a right rather than a duty. The military exists to kill and destroy, that is what it does. No one ever has a right to kill and destroy, though at times they have a duty to do so. But in order to sell military service on the youth we made it about getting a college education and benefits etc. Now it became your right to choose this path to get your education. I made use of that myself at one time and am glad it was there. But once this happened, it is no longer about service but about a right, and with that equal opportunity. Not allowing women in combat roles, effectively made a glass ceiling for the promotion of women in the military, It was a high one, but it was there. And well it’s a right not a duty anymore. Sick and disgusting.

Sg,

Women have been in the military for years functioning in different roles. Calling them “superfluous” and other remaks about it taking “two of them” to do the work of one man is pretty ignorant.

@15

Let’s try this again.

They have the freedom to choose whether or not to do those things, just like you and I. Perhaps there’s more liberty in being a stay at home mom or owning a business or whatever, but there’s no freedom in mandating that as a person’s only option.

This statement asserts that women get to choose whether to serve.

Where was the freedom in the draft that gave men exactly no options? They were conscripted to serve and shot for desertion or falling asleep on the watch.

This statement asserts that men do not get to choose whether to serve, at least not when it really matters like when there is a war that people will be forced to serve in rather than just asked. Plenty of men did not want to serve in Viet Nam. Too bad. They were sent to deaths anyway.

So, where is the equality? Women can just do what they feel like doing, while men are actually obligated to do stuff they don’t want to do. This puts women not on equal footing, but with far more rights than men. If we ever get into another war where we are actually threatened, it won’t be the chicks who save us.

I think Cincinnatus had it right; the military needs women, if not it could not function and we would have to reinstitute the draft; as C said they are probably just cannon fodder. I cannot understand why the men here are so against this. I am sure there are many women just as capable in combat as men and if they want to do it and are trained, why not? They are not forced to do this, but naturally, the conversation jumps to “lliberals” and abortionl, lol.

I wonder will we see a similar phenomenon that has occurred in churches where male participation dropped off, sometimes drastically, once women were allowed to serve in positions that were once men only.

Well, there is a short history of Canadian women in combat here: http://sistersinarms.ca/history/history-women-military/

About the same time as Canada changed it’s policy, various other countries did as well (France, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand..). And of course, Israel is famous for its military egalitarianism.

The UK only allows women in artillery roles, not infantry – and has done so since the 1940’s. And then there is the Soviet experience – one famous female soldier, Lyudmila Pavlichenko, was a sniper who was particularly successful in eliminating enemy snipers. But one could argue that those were extraordinary circumstances.

SG, please, we men are trying to have a serious conversation here, and it doesn’t help to have you getting all emotional. Your comments are unnecessary here.

SG, calm down! Stop being so dramatic!

@17 So you’re telling me that the Joint Chiefs, all of whom are combat veterans and career military men, were illogical in recommending that women be allowed to assume combat duties? That’s what you’re saying. I’d like to think that at least a little thought went into their decision. I’d like to think that they, in their wisdom and experience, determined that capable women should be allowed to serve in combat if they are able and willing because they won’t hurt the effectiveness of our military. I’m sure they thought about these things and determined something different than what you’re saying.

And my point about the draft is that it’s a red herring for a few reasons. 1. Our military is, and has been an all volunteer force for going on 40 years. 2. Women not being drafted has no bearing on their ability to serve in combat.

Kirk@30:

1) That’s a fallacious appeal to authority if I’ve ever seen one. Sure, since the Joint Chiefs made the decision, it must be unquestionably meet and right. No “career military man” has ever made an imprudent decision, and certainly never a political decision. Nope, the Joint Chiefs have decided, and their word constitutes absolute truth.

Look, I’m not suggesting that anyone here is acting hastily or thoughtlessly. But that doesn’t consequently mean the decision encapsulates the wisdom of Solomon.

2) “Our military is, and has been an all volunteer force for going on 40 years.” Way to shift the goalposts there! The fact that we still have selective service negates this entire line of discussion. Just because the military is currently volunteer doesn’t mean it always will be. Indeed, the persistence of SS implies that there will come a time when it won’t be. You know, when a real war comes around. The hypothetical but not unlikely case of the draft serves as a clarifying lens to expose the hypocrisy of the advocates of this decision. They say–you say–it’s about “freedom” and “choice.” But only for thee and not for me, apparently. (“Thee” being women in this case.)

3) “Women not being drafted has no bearing on their ability to serve in combat.” Nope, it sure doesn’t. Who said it did? Red herring. And I can assume this statement to imply that you think women ought to be drafted, right?

Cincinnati: Canada was active in Afghanistan for 10 years. We were active in Bosnia. And in Libya. Also, we’ve been providing soldiers for UN & NATO operations for a long, long time (including Desert Storm) – meaning that we have soldiers busy somewhere, permanently. Just because we don’t have humongous armed forces (as we did in WW II – by the end of the war, for instance, we had the third largest Navy in the world), and we didn’t follow Bush down that rabbit hole in Iraq, doesn’t mean we sit on out buts singing kumbaya…… Not that you said that exactly, but anyway.

Plus, Israel, one of the most active and successful militaries in the world has had women serving in combat for the past 12 years. They seem to be doing alright.

Uncle Sam funds and equips the Israelis who fight against rock throwing Palestinians who have to smuggle in arms. Shocking that the Israelis can one up those Palestinians.

Considering there are no real mental, physical, or biological differences between men and women, given that those differences that still remain are artificially imposed by patriarchal hegemony, and given that we are a society that has moved beyond being motivated by mere sexual attraction, there is absolutely no reason to keep women out of close combat roles.

Kirk@35 (and KK):

Canada, at a maximum, deployed 2500 troops to Afghanistan. Only 225 soldier in the entire Canadian combat services are women. There are more students in the class I’m teaching than there are women serving in a combat capacity in the Canadian military, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Similar numbers apply to the other nations KK lists. I’m not trying to minimize Canada’s commitment or to imply that Canadians are “cowards” and do-nothings, as KK suggested. But a sample of 2500 soldiers–smaller than a single American division–doesn’t, in my opinion, sufficiently illuminate whether women in combat are a hindrance or boon–or neither–to a fully-functioning military.

The question, in other words, isn’t whether a 2250 men and 225 women could succeed in a few missions in the desert, but whether a fully integrated combat infantry of 1.5 million soldiers could defeat, say, China’s non-integrated military. No, I don’t want this scenario to happen, and I don’t even think it likely. But that’s the question we should be asking when examining future threats and combat effectiveness.

It is, after all, simply a matter of fact that, as a general rule, women can’t run as far, carry as much, etc. Such concerns might be irrelevant in many missions. But, if battalions are fully integrated, it would reduce the flexibility of the military.

Furthermore, I wouldn’t use Israel as a shining example. A simple Google search will show you that male/female sexual assaults are reaching “epidemic” proportions in the IDF (1 in 7 female IDF member reports being sexually assaulted). Come to think of it, sexual misconduct is also a huge problem in the American military. Full integration will probably help, right? Right?

Finally, I think the Joint Chiefs constitute a non-sequitur. For the purposes of my arguments, who cares whether politics or prudence informed their decision? Neville Chamberlain thought he was making a prudent decision too. It’s just irrelevant to the discussion.

SG WHY ARE YOU PARTICIPATING IN THE WAR ON WOMEN?

Um, good point there. Are women now going to have to register with Selective Service?

Cincinnatus – you are undermining your own argument. Size is not the issue. Relative participation is. So, in these countries where women can participate, for more than a decade, they still make up a small percentage of the total combat troops. Why should the American experience by otherwise? Furthermore, no major collapse in morale or anything else has happened in these forces. Why should the American experience be other?

Whether you had say 1% of 2500 soldiers, or 1%o f 2 500 000 soldiers, the relative interaction of man and woman will be the same.

Cincinnatus, the only studies I’ve been able to find were looking at all sexual assaults involving the armed forces – the victims could be civilian, cadets (similar to boy scouts), dependents or military personnel. I did not find a break-down. The only useful statistic is that whereas in the Canadian general population the sexual assault ratio was 89 per 100 000, for assaults involving the armed forces it was 69 per 100 000. There does not seem to be grounds for claiming woman in combat changed anything, but the definitive stats are not there.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/macleans/military-response-to-rape-charges

“female combat participation, until women are drafted, is unlikely to be very high.”

It would be zero if they had to meet men’s fitness requirements.

08 JUNE 2011

Army Physical Fitness Standards (Too lazy to link to other branches, but rest assured that no equal opportunities require equal performance.)
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm
POSTED BY REBEKAH AT 8:10 AM

You gotta look at that link. It is hilarious. The fitness requirements for men aged 57-60 are higher than for women age 17-21!

Excuse me, the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

My son went to officer’s training at Pensacola. There were a few women there. At first he said, he thought the drill instructors were picking on them; the women got extra this and extra that at every opportunity. Most of them washed out. The ones that survived had developed the strength to keep up. Then he saw the wisdom behind the “extra drill”.
The return because of pregnancy from the first Gulf War was estimated at 15-20%, (not counting the ones who came up pregnant at home because on second thought they didn’t want to be deployed). [That’s Navy scuttlebut, not statistics, but it was seen that they left the area by the plane load.]
If they are going to train women, perhaps the women should be willing to wear the “five year patch” so that they won’t upset the combat effectiveness of a unit unnecessarily by bailing out at an inopportune moment.
Truth is, women don’t want combat as much as they want to be generals… but most generals have gotten there by seeing combat. [Most, I said.]
Recruiters don’t talk about the “joys” of living on the front lines; they promise large sums for extended education when you get out. [If you get out/in what shape you get out is not a topic.]

This will weaken our military – women are not as capable, meaning they are not physically equal to men.

A large segment of our society (women) want to compete with men on every level. Football is one area they have tried to enter, being on the same teams as men, both university and pro. Obviously they can’t compete.

God didn’t make women to direct men, or to protect them, lead them around. It doesn’t work.

Having observed the medical field for a long time, it became apparent when I was a child that female physicians are not as talented as men, as a general rule. There are a minority who measure up, but it’s very small indeed.

I believe that women do many things just as well as men, and many times are superior, however the military and becoming a physician are not vocations that fit in that category.

Arguments made regarding physical ability are not, as such, arguments against having women in the military. They are, rather, arguments for a more consistent application of physical standards without respect to gender. Sure, women are, on average, less strong than men. But that doesn’t mean that every women is incapable of meeting the standards expected of men, anymore than merely being male guaranatees that one is capable of them. So, again, if you want to make physical ability part of your argument, then you need to argue from physical ability. But what I seem to be hearing here is the suggestion that, because women are, on average, less physically capable than men, that therefore no women should be allowed in combat units, even if they are physically capable. That doesn’t make sense.

Paul Reed (@43) complains that “data and logic becomes less important” in these sorts of discussions, but, frankly, I don’t see opponents of this change offering up a lot of, well, data or logic. And, frankly, I don’t think they should, because those are the tools of pragmatism, and using such tools, you are likely to lose the argument.

This is fundamentally a philosophical issue. Unfortunately, I don’t think that the underlying philosophy has a lot of traction in this day and age. Because you’re trying to tell women what they can’t do based on ideas about what they ought not do, in general.

I’m sympathetic to the end that many are arguing for here, but I’m reading a lot of poor arguments to that end, and that makes me wary. For instance, Veith says (@42) that “women have the power to engender life”, which, yeah, isn’t true. “Bear children and nourish them”, yes (though as a father, I also nourish my children, just not with breast milk). But no, women are not “unique” in the power to engender life. I do believe it still takes two to tango. Veith also asks, “Is it right to put them in a position of killing other women’s children?” But why not also ask if it’s right to put men, or let’s just say fathers, in a position of killing other fathers’ children?

I agree. This is not good. This is only going to cause problems.

Well, DonS (@63), that is interesting. Because you appear to be making an almost purely pragmatic argument, not one that is philosophical in nature as to gender roles.

I maintain, though, that if one opposes this change solely on the grounds of physical ability, then your beef is with the unequal standards, not with allowing women to take on this or that role in the military.

And, you know, my proposal is no more hypothetical than anyone else’s here. We’re all arguing for what should be.

From the perspective of a Commander, there is one other issue that creates a serious problem: pregnancy. Once a servicemember is pregnant, they are not going to combat. If they become pregnant in combat, they go home immediately. Either way, the Commander loses a member of the team for whom there may or may not (more likely not) be a replacement. This is even more important in the infantry where squads and fire teams work closely together for many months to build the cohesion required to complete mission and hopefully have everyone come back alive.

We’ve tried to enforce “no pregnancy” within 3 months of a deployment, but that just “isn’t fair”. And I certainly don’t want to encourage an abortion (though I have actually heard that suggested by leaders). But now the team is short one and the rest have to pick up the slack. While she gets to stay home, work on college courses (at Gov’t expense), and not sleep in the dirt. And more than likely she won’t be held accountable in any way lest it be seen as a mistreatment of women (even if she isn’t doing her assigned job). Speaking of “unfair.”

Regardless, tODD @62 is probably right that the philosophical argument will not carry much weight today. The answer is a proper understanding of vocation (thanks Dr. Veith!), but that is viewed as terribly neanderthalic by those who are pushing a radical feminist agenda.

There is still an opportunity to push back against the diktat of SECDEF, but it has to come from the people of our nation telling their elected officials that this is not ok. Congress can still pass a law that forbids women in direct combat arms roles. If the nation says, “meh”, then it is done. But then, we ought to demand that the women get the full “equality” treatment – from Selective Service to the same demanding physical standards.

And then, God help us should this light weight force have to defend us.

DonS (@69), curious that you complain about my use of hypotheticals, and then go on to make your “greatest concern” based entirely on the hypothetical existence of (1) not only an active draft, but (2) one in which women are called up.

Call my naive, but it seems to me that an actual draft is about as realistic as an actual declaration of war. There are reasons we tend to want to avoid either of those as much as possible.

NavyChaps (@68), you said that “The answer is a proper understanding of vocation”, but I’m curious what you mean by that. What, in the doctrine of vocation, prohibits a woman from being in a combat unit?

Although there will be radical feminists who will insist that women must, due to the equality issue, sign up for Selective Service, I doubt that women will ever be compelled by Congressional action to do just that. Once the American public really understands the real and dangerous consequences of yesterday’s SECDEF’s decision, taking Missy down to the Post Office on her 18th birthday to really “sign up” for the draft will be a political bee hive that neither party will want to touch.

PC @ 72,

They may not have a choice. If it’s brought before the Supreme Court and they decide that the Selective Service System is unconstitutional under current policies, the only choices they will have will be to either reverse the policies allowing women to serve in combat or revise the system to make it more equitable–in other words, require women to register. I don’t think the public will enjoy either situation but, if I had to guess, I think political pressure would trend towards revising the policies.

But, yes, women in Selective Service would be a triple win for old-line Leftists. First, women would, once and for all, be considered equals in every way. Second, in times of war more women would be opting for higher education. Third, as they see it, the broadcasting of women coming home in flag-draped coffins, or with severe disabilities, would evoke public outrage and be the death-knell for unjust imperialistic wars of aggression (if that hasn’t already happened).

SKP, for all the lip service about gender equality, I have to believe that most of the public still feels differently about women getting maimed and killed than they do men. Now, you may be quite right in your assessment but the ideologues to whom I was referring don’t have a great track record of predicting where the laws of unintended consequences will lead.

Sorry PC, I blockquoted the wrong paragraph.

DonS at 5:58, you said:

“If the military, and particularly combat positions, were only open to women who could meet PT standards applicable to men, that would exclude almost all women and be opposed by many fewer people, including probably myself.”

Not so sure if you’re correct about “opposed by fewer” sorry….my guess it would be opposed by many, many more!

Very likely the very ones who support it now…they know it would not work without some sort of extra “support” shall we say 🙂

cheers!

 ‏

If women are not allowed to be deployed if pregnant, WHY would men be allowed to deploy if their wife becomes pregnant? Isn’t one just as important as another?

Women have privileges then men don’t have – are mother’s more important than fathers?

 ‏

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. “The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Are you ready to see your daughter in this predictament?

Of course, tODD! But the reality of a sinful world dictates that there will always be wars. I don’t want my daughters or yours in direct combat. And in my professional military opinion, direct combat should be fought by men. I fully understand that the U.S. Armed Forces could not do their mission without women serving in a variety of critical support roles but I don’t see any military requirement, none whatsoever, that women need to be in direct combat. What Ryan Smith described in the WSJ article wasn’t war, but rather the deplorable and necessary conditions of just getting to the point of contact. Actual combat is much worse.

I just heard today that 200+ female American soldiers have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and 800+ wounded. So the reality of women in combat seems to have been with us for a while already. Another point that was made is that in today’s wars, the concept of “front” and “rear” is outmoded. All personnel should expect to be attacked, and to have to engage the enemy in return. Finally, what the new policy really does is allow women – who for all practical purposes have been performing as combat soldiers anyways – to have the same opportunities in the military that men have. And why shouldn’t they, if they’re already dying in service to their country?

Yes, Tom does raise a good point. Experiencing direct combat should be all about equal opportunity instead of decisively winning. What was Ryan Smith and I thinking about in @86 above?