History of Women in Combat
...physical strength, an area in which some say women cannot compete with men, is just one part of being a soldier. Non-physical attributes are also important, they argue. "The qualities that are most important in all military jobs, things like integrity, moral courage and determination, have nothing to do with gender," says Rhonda Cornum, a former Army helicopter pilot who was shot down and captured by Iraqi forces during the Persian Gulf war. In fact, supporters note, the changes made in the 1990s that allowed women to fly combat aircraft and serve on many combat ships at sea had very few negative effects. For proof, they point to a 1997 study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that studies military and societal issues. The study, called "New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale," looked at the effects that the policy changes had on the military. Overall, the study concluded, the increased level of opportunity for women in the military has not had anywhere near the negative impact that critics warned would follow the changes. "A major finding of this study is that gender integration is perceived to have a relatively small effect on readiness, cohesion, and morale in the units studied," the report concluded. "This is not to say that it has no effect. However, other influences, such as leadership and training, are perceived as being far more influential." For instance, the study found that the increasing women's roles did not harm unit cohesion--a major area of concern for those opposed to women in combat. Gender was generally not found to be an issue, and even when there was conflict, work groups and rank issues tended to be more divisive issues than gender. In fact, the study said, greater integration had some very positive effects. Chief among them, the study said, was "raising the level of professional standards." Denying women the right to pursue whatever career they want to pursue in the military is a civil rights issue, supporters say. And just as it once seemed impossible that a harmonious, racially integrated military could ever be achieved, so, too, does it seem impossible at present that women can ever be fully integrated into the military. If the U.S. truly believes that equal rights is a notion worth fighting for, then the U.S. military should have to observe it as well, they say. "One of the reasons we go to war is to uphold values--like equality for all," says New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. "We transmit that message every time our troops encounter foreigners." Barring women from serving in combat roles hardly upholds the value of equality, supporters argue. Furthermore, they claim, that policy does not even make sense on a practical level. In fact, proponents argue, many women in combat situations can perform as well as, or better than, many of the men currently filling those positions. "Many women are excellent shots with pistol, carbine and automatic weapons, many men can't hit a cow with a target painted on it," Wilson notes. One of the assumptions underlying the idea that women are somehow unfit for combat is that men are innately braver than women, supporters point out. But, they say, like many of the myths of men's physical prowess, that is a fallacy. Similarly, many people claim that women do not possess the "killer instinct" necessary to be effective in combat situations. That, too, is inaccurate, supporters say. Wilson, a 22-year veteran of the Air Force elaborates: I have known some pretty weak men who wouldn't protect the back of their own mother in a crisis or combat situation and some strong women who would go to the wall for a total stranger in the trenches--and vice versa. But when it comes to the trenches, fox holes, covert operations, guerrilla warfare, etc., I think it takes a particular personality type--almost on the edge of a pathological one--to even want to become a trained killer. One consideration that women must take into account, which is generally not an issue for men, is that of sexual assault should they be captured. But the threat of rape is not something that should stop women from being allowed to go into combat, supporters say, because men also face the possibility of torture if captured. Cornum, who was taken prisoner by the Iraqis after the helicopter she was flying was shot down during the Persian Gulf war, knows about the dangers that women face as prisoners of war. While she was a prisoner of war, she was sexually molested. But her sexual abuse did not lead her to believe that women should stay away from the front. Rather, she says it was just a part of the experience, which also included breaking both of her arms. "A lot of people make a big deal about getting molested," Cornum says. "But in the hierarchy of things that were going wrong, that was pretty low on my list." And, supporters point out, in certain parts of the world, women might actually receive better treatment in captivity than men because they might seem more sympathetic to their captors. A case in point, they say, is Lynch, who was separated from the other captives and taken to an Iraqi hospital. "An Iraqi doctor felt so sorry for Jessica Lynch that he risked his life to help rescue her, and that probably wouldn't have happened if she'd been a big, hairy, smelly Marine," says Kristof. Critics Say Women Do Not Belong on the Front Lines The country's women do not belong on the front lines of the nation's battles, critics say. Women, though perhaps mentally capable of being frontline soldiers, lack the requisite physical ability to do so, they argue. While that may not be a popular or politically correct viewpoint, critics continue, it is nonetheless true. And, they conclude, since the primary goal of the military is to win wars with the minimum possible loss of American life, it is more important to have capable soldiers than to have politically correct policy. "When it comes to combat assignments, the needs of the military must take precedence over all other considerations, including the career prospects of individual service members," concluded five members of a 1992 presidential commission, the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which studied women in the military. "Civil society protects individual rights, but the military, which protects civil society, must be governed by different rules," the panel said. Regardless of what people may wish to believe, opponents say, the truth is that allowing women to serve in frontline combat positions would harm the ability of the U.S. to defend itself. According to William Gregor, a military science professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, when it comes to physical capabilities, the top 5% of women are roughly equal to the 50th percentile of men. Therefore, he notes, the best-performing women can physically perform only as well as a middling man. Furthermore, he says, most women fall well below that threshold, which means that many female combat soldiers would not be able to carry out the same physical tasks as their male counterparts. If the task were carrying a gasoline canister, critics say, then two women could do it and perhaps there would not be any negative consequences. But if the task were carrying a wounded comrade off the battlefield under enemy fire, speed would be essential and many women simply could not do it. "The exclusion of women [from combat] is...parallel to the exclusion of older people from active service, based not on prejudice, but on biological fact: Even the most fit 35-year-old man is not eligible for enlistment," says Kate O'Beirne, of the conservative National Review. Already, critics note, the standards by which soldiers are judged have been relaxed. For instance, at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., the Army's officer training academy, a system of "equivalent effort" has been devised to account for the unequal physical capabilities of the sexes. Women, for example, are allowed five minutes and 30 ...