Ban Against Women In Combat

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Jordan Gray

University of North Alabama

The role of women in combat has become one of the most controversial topics that the U.S. military has seen. On January 24, 2013, an announcement was made by the U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that the ban against women serving in combat was lifted. In reality, this ban only made what has been going on after a decade of war official. There is no law against women in combat and the reality is women have been flying combat missions for over two decades. What makes this decision controversial, is that it allows women to serve in combat units that are typically all male. Prior to this decision only the infantry, armor, and special operations community, were male only units. Women should continue to play their part in combat arms, however the standard should not be lowered to accommodate them. Will allowing women into all male units hurt combat readiness? Even though there has been an increase in women serving in the military, the Army is still 85% male. This paper examines recent studies done both in favor and against the combat exclusion policy. The research that has been done in favor of lifting this policy does offer a great deal of evidence. On the other hand, proponents of this ban do not account for the gap that exists between them and female soldiers that view themselves just as qualified as their male counterparts.

To understand the combat exclusion policy for women, it is important to look at the past. What is the Military Selective Service Act? This act requires the registration of all males between the ages of 18 and 26, to register with the Selective Service. One advantage of the MSSA is that it allows the armed forces of the U.S. to select men for service in the event that a military draft is enacted. The MSSA does not require women to register with the Selective Service (Oyez, 2013). During the early months of 1980, President Jimmy Carter re-established the draft registration process. He recommended that the MSSA be amended to allow females the ability to register. Congress agreed with the decision to re-establish the MSSA and change some of the age requirements, however they did not agree with allowing women to register with Selective Service. This decision opened the door for the Rostker v. Goldberg case. The Rostker v. Goldberg case brought to life the implications of the combat exclusion policy. The defendant Bernard D. Rostker, was the Director of the Selective Service System. This trial was extremely publicized and went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that excluding women from the Selective Service System was not unconstitutional and it did not infringe upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Oyez, 2013).

The majority’s argument came from Justice William Rehnquist who wrote that "men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for the draft (DeCew, 2013)." He argued that the system was meant to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since Congress had already recommended against women being part of a conscription in years past, he felt it was inappropriate to overturn that decision. Rehnquist believed that by adding women to the draft it would impair the goal of military flexibility. He concluded that need for women in noncombat positions were already being met by volunteers and that excluding women from combat is justified by basing the decision on military need over equity. Justice Rehnquist addressed in his argument that women were already excluded from combat by statute in the Navy and Air Force and by military policy in the Army and Marines (DeCew, 2013). These combat exclusion policies and statutes acted as a guide for Congress in excluding women from the draft. While the Rostker v Goldberg case regards requirements about having a draft, it also laid the foundation for what is known as the combat exclusion policy.

Prior to the Rostker v Goldberg case the first time any legislation was proposed regarding women in the military was introduced in 1947. The Senate proposed a bill in 1947 that established a regular corps of women in each of the services. Ironically there were no provisions in the bill that excluded women from combat roles. During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings not much attention was given to the idea of having a combat exclusion policy. There was some indication that the armed services did not intend to use women in combat situations. General Dwight D. Eisenhower was one of the key members that spoke his concerns about the role of women in the military. It was not until the Navy testimony that Representative Vinson from the House of Representatives, proposed a legislative exclusion regarding women in combat. He said that "a ship is not the proper place for a woman to serve." The following year when the bill was brought to Congress again it had included combat exclusions for women in the Navy and Air Force. The consensus was that women were to serve in a noncombat type role if they chose to be in the military (Decew, 2013).

Since the creation of the combat exclusion there has been an ongoing dilemma that is twofold. The feminists that claim to be in favor of lifting the ban and representing views of military women, actually only represent the individualist feminist agenda. One great characteristic about the military is that it does not value individualist perspectives. For instance when a young soldier reports to boot camp they are treated just like everybody else. The feminists that support lifting this ban do not understand the nature of the military as an organization. A great way to look at this would be to understand the impact of combat roles and take a middle of the road kind of view. Many people believe that if women want to volunteer for combat arms and meet all the requirements that is fine. The problem is that most feminists believe this is ‘unequal’ with men and the military should involuntarily assign women to these type of units. In the end the standards should not be lowered to accommodate for women but if female soldiers do volunteer and pass all necessary requirements then they deserve to be there (Miller, 1998).

Before a person decides if this policy is a good or bad thing they must first understand the differences between male and female soldiers. Men and women have key differences that that effect their ability to perform in the military. One of the most important is their body size and composition. An average male soldier usually weighs more than a female soldier and has more muscle mass. This allows them to perform most physical tasks at a higher level. Due to men having a greater lung capacity they typically have an advantage when it comes to performing aerobic tasks. These types of differences are key when a commander is trying to figure out his or her soldiers capabilities. If an officer understands these key differences in males and females then they can execute training to benefit all soldiers regardless of sex (Schrader, 1990). Knowing these differences the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces discovered, expanding combat roles to women is a mistake that demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to the military. The commission conducted a study and based off of their evidence the decision to lift the combat exclusion policy is a mistake. When compared to the same standard the top 20 percent of women achieve only achieve what the bottom 20 percent of males do on the Army Physical Fitness Test. They also found that only 7 percent of women can meet a score of 60 on the push-up event, while 78 percent of men go over that score. A young female soldier anywhere from the age of 20 to 30 has only as much aerobic capacity as the average 50 year old man. The last statistic they found was that one out of 100 female soldiers can meet the same physical standard attained by 60 percent of men (Luddy, 1994).

The evidence found by the 92’ commission shows that by letting women into combat related units such as the infantry, it is not to improve the fighting capability of those units. The only thing lifting this ban provides is more opportunities for women at the expense of possibly lowering the standard. They physical differences in women only account for a small portion of why allowing women into these units will effect combat readiness. When a women is pregnant this makes her less deployable on a short notice when compared to a man. During Operation Desert Storm women in the Navy were unavailable to deploy approximately four times more than men. Another huge factor in allowing females into all male units is sexual harassment and rape. Over the past decade military personnel have reported that sexual activity and harassment has taken place in their unit. Since men and women are already mixed together in support type units and these problems are occurring, the lifting of this ban will only make matters worse. Situations that regard sexual harassment or rape can destroy a unit’s cohesion and morale (Luddy, 1994).

The question still remains how do women feel about combat duty? The same 1992 commission conducted another survey showing that 70 percent of female soldiers liked the idea of allowing women to volunteer for combat type jobs. Of those same women that were surveyed, 90 percent of them said they would never volunteer for combat. If female soldiers don’t want to do it then why do feminists and politicians keep persisting on placing women into combat units? Many people believe that the combat exclusion policy has nothing to do with discrimination but with ensuring that the U.S. military is as strong as it can be.

Every argument has both sides and supporters of lifting this ban have a strong argument as well. The question that everyone asks themselves is can women cope with combat? People are concerned with the differences in physical strength between men and women. Another common concern is that women might not be able to handle close-quarter combat. "We need to take a more scientific approach," says Mary Cummings who was one of the first female fighter pilots in the Navy. A study conducted in the U.S. on females that experienced direct combat over the past decade felt no more threatened than men in war zones. This study also showed that they were as resilient as men to some of the mental health problems associated with war. Even amongst all the studies that have been done trying to disprove the physiological difference between men and women one thing is clear, more women experience sexual harassment than men. In 2010 nearly three thousand female soldiers reported that they were sexually assaulted. By lifting the ban and allowing females into the infantry or any other all male unit these numbers will most likely increase (Grossman, 2013).

Over the past decade warfare has seen a change from what it used to be. Our military now fights an irregular type of enemy who attacks by using improvised explosive devices. This distinct change has made the difference between fighting on the ‘frontline’ and support roles extremely unclear. In today’s Army a support soldier can just as easily get blown up on a convoy as an infantrymen. The Taliban and Al Qaeda do not discriminate against soldiers. Over the years different policy changes have tried to help take away the idea of combat and noncombat positions. Proponents that support the ban say that by banning women from combat our society helps further gender stereotypes and biases. Women in the military dates all the way back to 1948 when the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act was created. This act created a permanent corps of women in all four of the military departments. At the time this was a great step for furthering careers for women in the military but it is also where the combat exclusion policy originated. This act came about again and was reinforced in 1981 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the draft did not constitute gender-based discrimination (Mackenzie, 2012). During the 1980’s and 1990’s there was a big increase in women serving in the U.S. armed forces because in 1973 the U.S. military transitioned into an all-volunteer force. Of the four branches today the U.S. Air Force has the highest percent of women serving. In 1993 an act was passed allowing women to fly combat aircrafts and since then they make up 70 percent of the fighter pilots in the military. Also in 2003 the Army began to use forward support companies in Iraq to help provide logistical support to combat units. The barrier that kept women from being around combat disappeared because at that point they were right there in it. As the Taliban and Al Qaeda learned our fighting habits they began to use unconventional means of attacking soldiers. They began to strap mothers and children with improvised explosive devices. Women were quickly assigned to assist infantry units in searching women for explosives.

As the presence of women increased in Iraq and Afghanistan they began to receive pay which is a good thing. The military was beginning to acknowledge the threats that women were facing weren’t any different than that of an infantry company. In 2011 the Military Leadership Diversity Commission suggested that the Department of Defense (DOD) remove all combat exclusions on women. The commission said that the "exclusion from these occupations has a considerable influence on advancement to higher positions (Mackenzie, 2012)" In response to this the DOD said that they would continue to remove restrictions on women’s roles. The Marines in April 2012 said that women could train to be infantry officers but they could not yet serve. By opening up more jobs for women the military is acknowledging the contributions that women make in U.S. military operations. A former Marine Captain said "women are being shot at, are being killed overseas, are being attached to all of these combat arms units, and the combat exclusion policy needs to catch up with reality."

The most publicized and supported argument for keeping women out of combat roles is that they are not physically fit for the job. Supporters for lifting this ban argue that other militaries across the world have found that with proper training women can do the job. If this is true why aren’t they the greatest military power in the world? Physical fitness plays a big role in the military and there are some key differences between a female and male. Research shows that women who do in fact join the military are more fit than the average American. Mackenzie argues that performance is not determined by gender but it is determined by other factors. In her article she says that "there are physically fit tough women who are suitable for combat, and weak feeble men who are not." This statement is true however the percentage of women that can actually do the job are extremely low. Unfortunately the Army Physical Fitness Test is not the best gauge for determining a person’s physical fitness. This is why the military is currently revamping the APFT and trying to make it more realistic to the type of job a person is in. As far as equipment goes companies are creating body armor that is designed to fit for women so they can be more combat effective. This helps fuel the argument that with proper training and equipment women can serve in combat units just as good as men can (Mackenzie, 2012).

Another proponent to consider is the effects seeing a women in combat has on a man. If a male soldier sees a female soldier getting hurt he will be inclined to help her first no matter what the circumstance. The 1992 commission that was established by George H. W. Bush helped review the combat exclusion and how it would negatively affect the military if it was lifted. The commission identified many factors as to how women in combat roles would negatively impact troop dynamics, including the "real or perceived inability of women to carry their weight without male assistance, a ‘zero privacy’ environment on the battlefield, interference with male bonding, cultural values and the desire of men to protect women, inappropriate male/female relationships, and pregnancy (Mackenzie, 2012)." A study that was conducted in 1995 by the U.S. Army Research Institute found that the relationship between cohesiveness and performance is due to the commitment to the task. The study done by the U.S. Army Research Institute reinforces the idea that military performance no matter if they are male or female is based on their commitment to the same goal, not whether or not they like each other. Many people believe that male bonding can actually drag down a unit’s performance.

History repeats itself and proponents of this ban couldn’t agree more. They believe that when attitudes have been challenged the military has strengthened because of it. During the 1940’s when people believed that mixed-race units was a bad idea it actually was one of the best things the military has ever done. A study done in 2011 on the impact that this integration had on combat effectiveness during the Korean War found that it resulted in improvement. Korean War veterans that were surveyed said that it improved cohesion, leadership, and fighting spirit. Diversity is a good thing that can usually help problem-solving and decision making because it broadens the amount of knowledge that is put on the table. Many studies show that by actually integrating it will diminish prejudice and help foster group cohesiveness more. Over time the U.S. military has always stayed ahead of the road when it comes to the inclusion of minority groups. The U.S. military was the first federal organization to integrate African Americans. Up until the ban was lifted the military had a more conservative approach when in comparison with other federal groups (Mackenzie, 2012).

The women who choose to make the military a career are restricted in what they can do and studies show they have a higher chance of sexual harassment, discrimination, and sexual assault than any other career field. Over the past decade the military has come a long way in preventing these types of situations from occurring. A lot of money and effort has been put into programs that help make soldiers aware of the ongoing problems that our military is facing. Over a decade ago many Americans believed that the daughters’ of would not be coming home as casualties of war. Today 2 out of 3 Americans support the lifting of the combat exclusion policy. Although even amongst all the controversy the U.S. Army is still 85 percent male and combat readiness is high. The human nature of a man makes him a hunter or an aggressor which coincides with attributes that prove useful in combat. Although these traits also help males account for almost 95 percent of all military suicides. Over hundreds of interviews have been conducted since September 11th, 2001 and vets of the war say gender doesn’t matter when the bullets start flying. The women that are currently serving have accounted for 10 percent of all the troops deployed over the past decade (Thompson, 2013).

There is definitely a gap that exists from female soldiers that want to be in the infantry and ones that are perfectly fine where they are at. Women have done a great service to their country and have helped contribute to the U.S. success in the war. Over the past ten years the military has seen many changes to include policy changes and revamping how new soldiers are trained. Men and women have key differences that effect their ability to perform in the military. Women should continue to play their part in combat arms, however the standard should not be lowered to accommodate them. By allowing females into these units they must be able to meet the requirements that are necessary for the job just like a man would do. Keeping combat arms as an all voluntary force for women is good. Although the military should never involuntarily assign women to combat units. As women continue to join the military the homophobic type attitudes will continue to diminish just like they did many years ago. Over time the military will work out the kinks and keep the ripple effect to a minimum. If the lifting of the combat exclusion policy allows females that want to be in the infantry that can meet the standard then so be it. Although not at any point in time should the standard be lowered to accommodate for anyone regardless of their gender.