CONGRESS SHOULD HOLD HEARINGS BEFORE ALLOWING WOMEN IN COMBAT
By John Luddy
7/27/94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of the Army Togo West announced on June 1 that the Army soon will reclassify a number of combat assignments to make them available to women. (Memorandum from the Secretary of the Army for the Secretary of Defense, "Recommendations for Opening Additional Positions for Women Under the DOD Assignment Policy -- Decision Memorandum," June 1, 1994.) Positions as combat engineers, as air defense artillery specialists, and as pilots and crew members of helicopters on special operations missions until now have been closed to women in accordance with long-standing Pentagon regulations. West's proposals represent a complete reversal of this traditional Army policy.
If the Army brass has its way, however, West's decision will not stand. He withdrew his proposal after nearly unanimous opposition from such top Army officers as Chief of Staff General Gordon Sullivan. (Eric Schmitt, "Generals Oppose Combat By Women," The New York Times, June 17, 1994, p. A1.) In the words of Sullivan's deputy, General J.H. Binford Peay III, before the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 16, "I do not think it is appropriate to open up the traditional positions of infantry, armor, field artillery, engineer at certain levels of the battlefield, air defense at certain levels of the battlefield, special operating force aviation, and a few others." (General J.H. Binford Peay III, USA, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, June 16, 1994.) It is no surprise that seasoned military leaders reject West's proposal. Allowing women into these units would damage the military's hard-earned effectiveness and, for the first time in U.S. history, deliberately expose women to enemy fire and extreme risk of death and capture. West is expected to announce a revised policy later this summer but, in the meantime, is sticking by his original proposal.
Before giving the Secretary of the Army or other Administration officials free rein to change long-standing U.S. policy toward women in combat, Congress should learn for itself what such a change of policy would entail. It could begin by reviewing the findings of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, a bipartisan task force appointed by former President George Bush to examine this issue. After a year's study and hundreds of hours of hearings, the Commission voted unanimously in November 1993 to codify into law the Army's existing regulations exempting women from combat. The Commission also voted nine to four that the existing "risk rule" regarding non-combat positions be retained. (Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President, November 15, 1992, pp. 24-27, 36-37.)
An appropriate forum for review of these and other findings of the Presidential Commission would be joint hearings by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, during which West and other senior Pentagon Officials should be required to answer a number of troublesome questions:
Are women physically suited to the rigors of ground combat?
How will bearing and raising children affect a woman's readiness to deploy on short notice, as is frequently required of military units?
What are the potential consequences of women and men operating in intimate proximity away from home for extended periods of time?
How do women serving in the armed forces feel about being assigned to combat units?
What has been the experience of nations that have mixed men and women in combat units?
WHAT IS BEHIND THE ARMY'S NEW PUSH FOR WOMEN IN COMBAT?
Secretary West's changes in Army assignment policies came in response to then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin's January 1994 decision to loosen the military's long-standing ban on women in combat. First, Aspin rescinded the so-called risk rule, which prevented the assignment of women to support units -- engineering, supply, and military police units, for example -- that operate with combat forces (such as tanks and infantry) and face a substantial risk of contact with the enemy. Second, he ordered the armed services to review their personnel assignment policies. Those jobs that meet the Pentagon's narrow definition of "direct ground combat" -- "engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew-served weapons [such as machine guns and rifles], while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force's personnel" (Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense to the [Service Secretaries], Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), and Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs), "Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule," January 13, 1994.) -- are to remain closed to women. Positions in units which "routinely collocate" with direct ground combat forces also are to remain closed, but women are to be allowed in all other assignments. Secretary West's June 1 memo is the Army's response to these instructions, which are to take effect October 1, 1994.
Calling Warfare Something Else Does Not Make It Easier or Safer. The Administration's new definition of "non-combat" positions is both inaccurate and unrealistic. In his memo, Secretary West explicitly applies Aspin's definition "strictly as written," meaning that a job must involve simultaneously "engaging the enemy," "being exposed to hostile fire," and having "direct physical contact" with the enemy. However, a soldier facing any one of these conditions surely is engaged in combat. Moreover, Aspin's definition implies that only riflemen and machine gunners can be "in combat." But someone can be "exposed to hostile fire" well outside of rifle range; a soldier can be killed by an artillery round fired from twenty miles away. And is "direct physical contact" only actual hand-to-hand combat, or is being within range of the enemy's hand grenades or pistols "direct" enough?
In fine-tuning a definition of combat to suit their political objective, the Administration is forging neat distinctions which simply do not exist on the battlefield. Positions like combat engineer and air defense artillery specialist have been closed to women because they involve the likelihood of direct exposure to enemy fire. They also involve operating in proximity to infantry, artillery, and other combat forces whose sole purpose is to find and destroy the enemy. The Administration's new rules for combat assignment imply that the enemy will attack only U.S. forces engaged in "direct ground combat" as Aspin defines it. At any time, however, those in what the Administration would call "non-combat" units can be hit by enemy fire, have physical contact with enemy troops, and otherwise "engage the enemy." The West memorandum makes clear the Clinton Administration's intention to open such positions to women without regard for the realities of the battlefield.
The Real Agenda: Career Opportunity Over Military Effectiveness. The Clinton Administration's real objective in pushing to place women in harm's way is explicit. Aspin's instructions in January advised the armed services to "use this guidance to expand opportunities for women. No units or positions previously open to women will be closed under these instructions." Aspin further stated that "we've made historic progress in opening up opportunities for women in all of the services.... [E]xpanding the roles of women in the military is the right thing to do, and it's also the smart thing to do." (Eric Schmitt, "Aspin Moves To Open Many Military Jobs to Women," The New York Times, January 14, 1994, p. 22.) In his June 1 memorandum, Army Secretary West echoed this position: "America's Army is proud to be on the forefront of providing opportunities for women.... [W]e take every opportunity to enhance the career opportunities of all service members.... " ("Recommendations for Opening Additional Positions for Women Under the DOD Assignment Policy -- Decision Memorandum," op. cit.) One analysis of West's memorandum notes that it "uses phrases such as 'career opportunity' no less than ten times, but references to military requirements are conspicuously absent." (Center for Military Readiness, news release, June 8, 1994.) The Administration claims that placing women in combat assignments will make the military more effective, but this claim is not supported by the evidence. It is time for Congress to examine that evidence.
QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS
The Clinton Administration is proposing momentous changes in policy with serious implications for U.S. military effectiveness. Before changes in current combat restrictions are allowed to take effect in October, Congress must hold hearings on the role of women in America's defense. As part of these hearings, Members must ask Secretary of Defense William Perry, the Secretaries of each of the armed services, and senior uniformed officers five questions.
Question #1: Are women physically suited to the rigors of ground combat?
Answer: The evidence suggests that they are not. In weighing the ability of women to perform under combat conditions, the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces heard testimony from Army Lieutenant Colonel William Gregor, Chairman of the Department of Military Science at the University of Michigan, who conducted a test of Army officer candidates and found that:
The top 20 percent of women at West Point achieved scores on the Army Physical Fitness Test equivalent to the bottom 20 percent of male cadets.
Only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60 on the push-up test, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
A 20- to 30-year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50-year- old man.
Only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men. Gregor concluded that going through this process would mean that "I have just traded off 60 soldiers for the prospect of getting one. The cost considerations are prohibitive." (Lt. Col. William Gregor, USA, testimony before the Presidential Commission, September 12, 1992, cited in the Presidential Commission's Report to the President, November 15, 1992, p. C-42.)
Soldiers under fire must have confidence in the physical abilities of their comrades. Before allowing women to face the stress of combat, Congress must hear from Lieutenant Colonel Gregor and other experts to determine whether women are physically suited for it.
Question #2: How will bearing and raising children affect a woman's readiness to deploy on short notice, as is frequently required of military units?
Answer: Because of pregnancy and family responsibilities, many women cannot be shipped out to a foreign crisis as quickly as men. During Operation Desert Storm, for example, enlisted women in the Navy were unavailable for overseas deployment nearly four times more often than men. At any given time, between 8 and 10 percent of women in the Navy are pregnant; (Department of the Navy, Navy Personnel Survey, 1990 Survey Report, Volume 2.) for the Army, the figure is 10 to 15 percent. (Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988), p. 235.) Because Navy regulations require pregnant sailors to be within six hours of a medical facility, each of these women must be replaced before a ship can sail. This could lead to sudden gaps in a small unit that depends on the presence of all members to complete its mission. Such gaps would damage the cohesion of a tightly knit combat team.
Moreover, this effect will be magnified as the military continues to shrink under the Clinton Admini-stration's defense budget cuts. Because it is getting more difficult to attract qualified candidates, military recruiters are trying to appeal to women with promises of career advancement. The result is a higher number of women as a percentage of the total force; while women accounted for only 14.5 percent of Army recruits four years ago, for example, they will comprise 20.5 percent this year. (Rowan Scarborough, "Military Recruiters Increasingly Rely on Women to Fill Ranks," The Washington Times, February 28, 1994, p. A1.) Lower unit readiness caused by the absence of child-rearing women inevitably will get worse as the military continues to attract a higher percentage of women its ranks.
Question #3: What are the potential consequences of women and men fighting alongside one another?
Answer: Combat is a team activity which brings people closer together than any other profession. A small number of women may possess the physical and mental toughness to perform some combat duties; but teamwork matters more than individual capabilities in combat, and this teamwork generally is undermined by the presence of women. On one support ship during Operation Desert Storm, 36 of the 360 women on board -- ten percent -- became pregnant. (Alecia Swasy, "Shipboard Pregnancies Force the Manly Navy to Cope With Moms," The Wall Street Journal, October 3, 1991, p. 1.) In a Roper survey conducted during the Gulf War, 64 percent of military personnel surveyed reported that sexual activity had taken place in their unit. (The Roper Organization, "Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Military Perspective," September 1992.) Mixing men and women in military units invites sexual attraction and special relationships, and these relationships -- or even the perception that they exist -- destroy the morale and cohesion which any fighting force must have to win wars. If more women join combat units that become open to them as a result of the Administration's new policies, this problem will only worsen.
Question #4: How do women serving in the armed forces feel about being assigned to combat units?
Answer: In a 1992 survey of Army women, between 70 and 80 percent of respondents favored allowing women to volunteer for combat. Yet, among the same respondents, 90 percent of female noncommissioned officers and 88 percent of enlisted women indicated that they would not volunteer; only 14 percent of the Army officers surveyed indicated that they would volunteer for combat assignments. And fully 52 percent of Army women claimed they would leave the service if women are compelled to serve in combat. (Laura Miller and Dr. Charles Moskos, "1992 Survey on Gender in the Military," Northwestern University, September 1992.)
The charge that barring women from combat units inhibits their career advancement is groundless. According to Department of Defense statistics, even with the combat exclusion for women, the services are promoting females at similar or faster rates than males. (Department of Defense, "Military Women in the Department of Defense," Volume VIII, July 1990, pp. 30, 73.) Expanding combat "opportunities" places the aspirations of feminist activists ahead of the wishes of most military women, who have expressed consistently strong personal resistance to being assigned to combat.
Question #5: What has been the experience of nations that have mixed men and women in combat units?
Answer: History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle. For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield. (Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, International Trip Report, September 14-27, 1992.) These findings will come as no surprise to most Americans; in a recent national survey, two-thirds of those who favored the current policy barring women from ground combat cited the potential loss of mens' effectiveness as a reason. (The Roper Organization, "Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Public Perspective," September 1992, p. 41.)
CONCLUSION
The American people know that the purpose of the armed forces is to fight and win the nation's wars, not to serve as a laboratory for social "progress." While the military attempts to provide servicemen and women with rewarding careers, it must not do so at the expense of its readiness for war. Most Americans understand that the majority of men are physically stronger than the majority of women and that the risk of sexual attraction can undermine the cohesion and discipline necessary for success on the battlefield. Most are also uncomfor with the deliberate exposure of women to violence. Unfortunately, their common sense is not shared by the Clinton Administration, which already has shown a lack of sound military judgment regarding the assignment of known homosexuals to the armed forces, the use of force in Somalia, and the military build-up around Haiti.
When their very existence was threatened, many nations -- Israel during its 1948 war for independence, and both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany near the end of World War II -- used women in combat, removing them when the crisis passed. The U.S. faces no such threat today; moreover, thousands of qualified men and women are leaving the military as it gets smaller. The facts demonstrate that placing women in or near combat units will damage military effectiveness. Weakening America's military might in this way and at this time is particularly troubling. The U.S. armed services already are suffering from deep budget cuts and declining morale. (For a discussion of the military budget crisis, see John Luddy, "Stop the Slide Toward a Hollow Military," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 209, January 14, 1994, and Baker Spring, "Fixing The 1995 Defense Budget," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 227, June 22, 1994.) By holding hearings to examine the wisdom of the Clinton Administration's change in policy, Congress can stop the Administration from using the military as a laboratory for social engineering.
Facebook
Twitter