What About Women in Combat
Well, it’s now official.
The military policy now says women will serve in combat. Personally, I have mixed emotions about that
decision, but I’ll get to that later.
First I’ll examine what I believe to be common ground for both sides of the
argument.
There are three things I think, or at least I hope, we can
all agree on.
1…Women are entitled to equal opportunity.
2…MOST women do not have as much physical strength as MOST
men do.
3…The goal of the military should be to have the toughest, most
efficient fighting force possible. OK,
the second of the three is probably the controversial, so let’s take a closer
look at it.
The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a
three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum
requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 setups and a
two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age,
the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 setups and a 19:42 two-mile run. Why the difference in fitness
requirements? "USMC Women in the Service Restrictions Review" found
that women, on average, have 20 percent lower aerobic power, 40 percent lower
muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting strength and 26 percent slower marching
speed than men.
William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army's
Command and General Staff
College, reports that in tests of
aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers' Training
Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The "fight
load" -- the gear an infantryman carries on patrol -- is 35 percent of the
average man's body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman's weight. In
his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to
1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9
percent of women were able to attain the men's average pushup ability and time
in the two-mile run.
In a January report titled
"Defense Department 'Diversity' Push for Women
in Land Combat" Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for
Military Readiness, points to U.S. Army studies showing that women are twice as
likely to suffer injuries than men.
Women
are less likely to be able to march under load -- 12.4 miles in five hours with
an 83-pound assault load -- and to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate
obstacles with that load or move a casualty weighing 165 pounds or more while
carrying that load. Plus, there are muscle-challenging feats, even for men,
such as field repairs on an M1A1 Abrams tank.
Finally, there's another difference between men and women
rarely considered in deliberation about whether women should be in combat. All measures of physical aggressiveness show
that men, maybe because of testosterone levels 10 times higher, are more
aggressive, competitive and hostile than women. Those attributes are desirable
for combat.
I must confess, my eight years of military experience took
place many years ago, long before the young men and women currently serving
were even born. In those days, women
were NOT trained for combat and did not serve in combat zones. The facts and figures stated above came from
what I have read, not what I have personally experienced. Having said that, you
probably think (and rightfully so) that my opinion is somewhat biased.
I also realize that technology has changed a lot over the
years, and there may very well be a lot of “combat jobs” these days that
doesn’t require the same physical strength as a foot soldier carrying a field
pack, a weapon, and ammo. I sincerely
hope that the military is allowed to take all these things into consideration
when training women for combat, but I’m afraid political correctness will trump
common sense.
Suppose a combat unit is retreating in mountainous terrain
in Afghanistan,
where a person's aerobic capacity really makes a difference and the women in
the unit can't keep up with the men. What
are they suppose to do? Would you
propose, leaving the women behind to possibly be captured by the Taliban or
having the unit slow down so the women can keep up, thereby risking causalities
or capture?
There are other problems that would occur in combat. Without getting into details, just imagine a
woman in combat being forced to remain in a foxhole for several days with three
or four men. If you don’t know what a
foxhole is, it’s a small hole in the ground with no bathroom facilities.
I guess my gut feeling is, IF a women volunteers for combat, and IF she is physically qualified for it, then she should have that
right. But I still think it should be on
a volunteer basis only.
There is one final issue I should mention.
The reason women have never been required to
register for the draft in this country is because they have never OFFICIALLY
been allowed to serve in combat.
Are we
opening a can of worms? Let’s hear your
two cents.
Here is an update
added on 2/15/13
Democrats already want to draft women...
Here is an update added on 20 February 2013.
It is an article
written by Maj. General Patrick Brady.
I can assure you, he has much more expertise on the subject than I ever
will. He says women in combat will pose “an
insane burden on readiness”.
