Three-Quarters Back Women in Combat Roles
EmailThe Military Leadership Diversity Commission has company: Nearly three-quarters of Americans agree that women in the armed services should be allowed to serve in ground units that engage in direct combat.
The commission, established by Congress in 2009 to evaluate military policies, recommended earlier this month that the U.S. military stop excluding women from ground combat units, saying such policies do not in fact keep them out of combat situations, deny them equal opportunities to serve and interfere with their promotion to senior ranks.
The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds little controversy about it: Seventy-three percent of Americans support allowing women in the military to serve in ground units that engage in close combat – essentially the same among men and women alike.
There are some differences among groups. Support for allowing women in combat roles peaks among young adults – 86 percent of under-30s – while dropping to 57 percent among senior citizens. And it’s higher among more-educated Americans – 79 percent among those with college degrees vs. 66 percent among people who haven’t finished high school.
Politically, support for allowing women in combat roles is higher among Democrats (80 percent) and independents (73 percent) than it among Republicans (62 percent). It ranges from 85 percent among liberals to 58 percent among “very” conservative Americans. But in no group is a majority opposed.
Here's the question we asked:
34. Do you support or oppose allowing women in the military to serve in ground units that engage in close combat?
Result: Support 73%, Oppose 25%, No opinion 2%
Biden Reflects on Grief, Suicidal Thoughts 
Is Congress Sounding Dumber?
I hope the same people wont give into blackmail, cutting-and-running, or sacrificial rescue operations once the first women are unfortunately taken prisoner and subjected to gangrapes, torture, etc. Our enemies, particularly in the radical Muslim world, don’t treat their own women well- imagine what they would do to a captured military woman.
Posted by: Ed | March 16, 2011, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
Women should be allowed to serve in combat units if they meet the requirements to be a part of that organization. Already involved in combat operations, women have been and continue to serve in combat during this country’s recent conflicts. Female Soldiers have already patrolled streets carrying weapons, performed as MK-19 gunners on HMMWVs, executed bomb disposal operations, driven through IED-ridden roads, and conducted raids. War is chaotic and the “front lines” of battle do not stop at some imaginary line. Preventing women from going into combat should be a moot issue.
There are several arguments for those against and for women in combat and most are speculative in nature. First are the physical concerns associated with carrying heavy loads of combat gear for a duration of time over long distances. Obviously, there are physical differences between men and women. True, men are generally stronger than women. Studies have shown that women, in general, are shorter and smaller than men with approximately 45-50% body strength and lesser aerobic capacity. However, the fact of the matter is that these are generalizations. There are women out there who do not fall in this category and are capable of the physical demands required of combat units. Evidence exists that demonstrates women’s ability to condition themselves to attain the necessary level of upper body strength to serve in combat. The question is not about the number of women who do it but more of a question of opening the opportunity to qualified personnel.
The physiological concern of women’s monthly cycle is another argument against women in combat. However, there is no evidence to refute the fact that women are able to perform their duties despite primitive and unhygienic conditions. This last decade has proven that there have already been women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan who carry a full basic load of ammunition, and fire the SAWs, .50 caliber machine guns, and M-4 rifles, all in defense of their fellow Soldiers and in harsh environments.
While others argue that the inclusion of women in combat units affects good order and discipline due to inappropriate romantic relationships, sexual harassment issues, and pregnancies, the answer to that lies with the leadership. Undoubtedly, this will require more work on the part of that military leader. However, these excuses present a weak argument to exclude women in combat.
Military leaders have already recognized the significant need for females in combat. Examples include the Army Lioness Teams, all-female teams whose mission is to accompany all-male Marine combat units into insurgent areas in Iraq. One of their tasks is to search Iraqi women for weapons or explosives. Among several benefits, those female Soldiers provide a calming effect for Iraqi women and children. Another is the Female Engagement Team in Afghanistan whose mission is similar in nature to the Lioness Teams.
There are examples of coalition partners who already have women serving in combat forces such as France, Canada, Germany, Norway, and Denmark. Perhaps the results of the integration of women in combat in other countries needs to be evaluated.
Most of the Soldiers with whom I currently serve are not as concerned about serving alongside women in combat. In fact, the involvement of women during the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan earned the respect of their fellow Soldiers.
If a woman decides to join a combat unit, then she should have the right to be a part of that unit if she meets the requirements to join. Once organizations have assessed the standards required for entry into that particular branch, then both men and women should have the opportunity to be judged by the same standards.
Whether or not women serve in combat requires a paradigm shift and a reexamination of society’s view of the role women play in society. The idea that women cannot serve in combat is antiquated; one cannot ignore that social morays are changing. Nothing is gained by supporting the status quo of the prevention of women in combat. In reality, women are already a part of it.
I have a sister who chose Military Police as her branch after receiving her commission. During her time as a platoon leader in Iraq, she led her Soldiers through convoys and patrols. Additionally, one of my friends is currently deployed serving successfully as an Apache pilot.
The military appears to have been at the forefront of breaking social barriers, allowing desegregation of the military, for example. Surmounting this issue of women in combat should be no different. It is only a matter of time before the regulations are lifted that historically prevented women from serving in combat roles and consequently addressing the reality created by the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts.
CPT(P) Michelle Byron, Student, Command and General Staff College, US Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS
“The views expressed in this “insert type” are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”
Posted by: Michelle Byron | May 13, 2011, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
The time is right for policy change. Although women are not technically in combat roles, they are in combat. Throughout history, American women have put themselves in harm’s way during combat. In the past ten years, women have consistently demonstrated their ability and willingness to fight and die alongside their male counterparts.
While I agree that women have demonstrated that they are capable of serving in combat, I believe that policy makers must look beyond simply “allowing” women access to service in combat units. They must change policy to create true equality between men and women in the military. This entails equality in both opportunities and requirements. It’s important to remember that the job of the military is to defend the country, i.e. maintain combat readiness. To that end, it’s essential to have a stable and reliable manpower base. I believe that three main policy changes are necessary and that the policy changes should be focused on placing women (and men) in jobs that they are best qualified for and jobs that best meet the needs of the service.
First, it does matter how many women work in a particular career field, branch, or platform. As with any demographic, it is essential to have a consistent enlisted, NCO, and Commissioned officer structure in order to facilitate appropriate leadership, mentoring, and development throughout the ranks of the organization. In some instances, it may be necessary for recruiting policy to limit women’s entry into non-combat jobs in order to balance the combat ranks. Second, pregnancy can no longer be allowed to reduce combat readiness. I’m not suggesting that women in the military cannot become mothers, but that that choice cannot be allowed to reduce military efficiency. Weather by choice or neglect, pre-deployment pregnancies continue to create manpower shortages in units and platforms entering combat operations. Finally, there is the issue of selective service. Current laws require men to register for selective service. This is not a choice; it is an obligation of our citizenship. If women expect, as they should, to be considered equals, they must also accept the responsibilities of full citizenship.
CDR John Graf, Student, Command and General Staff College, US Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS
“The views expressed in this “insert type” are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”
Posted by: John Graf | May 31, 2011, 6:47 am 6:47 am