Why Not Register Women for Future Military Draft?

The Charlotte Observer ^ | 1-17-2003 | Ellen Goodman

[unspun]

Why not register women for future military draft?

Teens file suit to declare the all-male registry unconstitutional

ELLEN GOODMAN

BOSTON - (beginning of article removed - use link) In some ways, this was a suit just waiting to happen. Or, actually, to happen again. In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld this males-only law as reasonable because there were so many restrictions against women in the military.

But that was 22 years ago, before women were on the court, before most of the restrictions were lifted, before there were 33 female generals and 212,000 female soldiers doing nearly every job in the military short of ground combat.

The rules and the images have changed one war at a time. In the Gulf War, there was still a national debate about women, especially mothers, at war. There were headlines: "Women in Harm's Way," "Mommy Goes to War." An AP poll said 64 percent of Americans thought mothers shouldn't be sent to a war zone.

Now in the run-up to this Iraq war, we talk about "husbands and wives," "sons and daughters," "mothers and fathers" going off to war with strikingly little comment. Women at war are no longer news.

I am sure that it's easier to accept and support the idea of fighting-women in the context of a volunteer army. This is the world they chose. And surely it's easier to support a coed registry when there's no draft anyway. But at this post-9/11, pre-Iraq war moment in time, this case is not just a prod to think about equal rights. It's also a message about burdens.

Indeed, as this quintet of young people filed their suit, Rep. Charles Rangel filed a consciousness-raising bill to reinstitute the draft as part of a national service. How come, he asked, only a handful of the members of Congress who voted to allow war in Iraq have children in the military? He is arguing that "if we are going to send our children to war, the governing principle must be that of shared sacrifice."

If that's true of race, of class, of Congress, it's also true of gender. Over the years, I remember endless articles asking, "Is America ready to see women come home in body bags?" But I can't remember a single article asking whether we were ready to see men come home in body bags. I never understood why it was easier to send our sons into harm's way.

"As much as it would kill me to see my kids go off to war," says Schwartz, "I don't see how you can advocate sending other kids to war while saying mine should be protected." That includes the parents of daughters.

The military isn't always in sync with civilian times.

It was racially integrated in the 1950s when the South was still segregated.

It still wants gays in the closet. It has been on both the front lines and the rear guard of advancing women.

Gradually, as the brass found that women can do the job, we ran out of reasons for treating them differently in the military. Why then treat them differently in registering for Selective Service, a list gathered in case of emergency?

"If things get so bad we have to start drafting kids, why wouldn't we want women?" asks Schwartz. "Is it chivalry? Stereotypes? I can't think of a good reason."

Neither can I.

Ellen Goodman Ellen Goodman is an associate editor of The Boston Globe. Write her c/o Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071 or by e-mail at ellengoodman@globe.com.

[unspun]

It would be interesting to see how many FReepers are modernists or postmodernists who would be called conservative and how many are those who instead believe in timeless principles, such as valuing and respecting women too much to want them fight in battle.

I took out a portion of this article, since Ellen Goodman is publishing this as part of the "Washington Post Writers Group."

[Support Free Republic]

DO YOU REMEMBER TOMMY ON ELECTION NIGHT

LET'S DO IT AGAIN IN 04

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[My2Cents]

As soon as women were included in the draft pool, there'd be a group formed called "Feminists for the End of the Draft."

[unspun]

Pardon typo: It would be interesting to see how many FReepers are modernists or postmodernists who would be called conservative and how many are those who instead believe in timeless principles, such as valuing and respecting women too much to want them to fight in battle.

This causes me to be sad.

Remember the women in the Gulf War who was being flown into battle to tend to the wounded? Her helicopter was shot down and she was seriously wounded. When her captors lifted her cap and saw her hair fall down, telling them she was a woman, her flight suit was immediately unzipped and one of them got busy.

How would you like to fight in battle, men, and have your wife, the mother of your children fighting a few feet away?

Whatever happened to that word "honor" in Duty, Honor, Country?

[netmilsmom]

Wait, wait, wait!!!! My father, who was the biggest (but most loving) anti-feminist, always said he never wanted woman in battle but he taught typing in the army in the 50's. He was a big proponent of women being drafted. There are many ways a lady can serve besides actual battle.
If they call my girls, I will proudly and tearfully see them go.

[xzins]

It has nothing to do with old and new. The demands of combat are physical. In a pinch, the guy could save the lady by dragging her out, but the lady couldn't save the guy.

An old FR article tells it better than I do.
go to: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/644296/posts

Women In Combat: Facts From A Closet
Toogood Reports ^ | March 11, 2002 | Fred Reed


Posted on 03/11/2002 8:29 AM EST by Stand Watch Listen



Occasionally I have written that placing women in physically demanding jobs in the military, as for example combat, is stupid and unworkable. Predictably I've gotten responses asserting that I hate women, abuse children, cannibalize orphans, and can't get a date. A few, with truculence sometimes amplified by misspelling, have demanded supporting data.


OK. The following are from documents I found in a closet, left over from my days as a syndicated military columnist ("Soldiering," Universal Press Syndicate). Note the dates: All of this has been known for a long time.


From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993): "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."


Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:


"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.


"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."


From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:


"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.


"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.


"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.


"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."


Also from the Commission's report: "Non-deployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead's testimony before the Commission, 'the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.'"


Maybe we need armored strollers.


My friend Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and (no, I'm not on drugs) enlisted in the Army in 1995. Her account was published in Reader's Digest, February, 1999, and is online in the Digest's archives.


She told me the following about her experiences: "I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn't. It wasn't even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries.


"They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women weren't allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called them 'Battle Buddies.' It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I couldn't go to the bathroom by myself."


Women are going to take on the North Korean infantry, but need protection in the ladies' room. Military policy is endlessly fascinating.


When I was writing the military column, I looked into the experience of Canada, which tried the experiment of feminization. I got the report from Ottawa, as did the Commission. Said the Commission:


"After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1.


From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon's library:


(p. 690): "One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while participating in field exercises." Because peeing was embarrassing.


Or, (p. 661): " Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women…" Depression, says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera.


The military is perfectly aware of all of this. Their own magazine has told them. They see it every day. But protecting careers, and rears, is more important than protecting the country.


Anyway, for those who wanted supporting evidence, there it is.

[TheJollyRoger]

We do not want to conscript women because we need an army that can FIGHT. We do not need an army that can bit@h.

[unspun]

Undecided about that. Maybe, if they were well out of SCUD range... of course then there are cruise missles and intermediate range missles....

Volunteer, certainly, but conscript?

BTW, unlike the apparent McCainite, Lindsey Graham, I'd say it would be patently unAmerican for us to draft anyone, without a determined need, or as a prepared force available only in case of the need.

[unspun]

Anyway, for those who wanted supporting evidence, there it is.

Always good to have.

[m1-lightning]

Remember the women in the Gulf War who was being flown into battle to tend to the wounded? Her helicopter was shot down and she was seriously wounded. When her captors lifted her cap and saw her hair fall down, telling them she was a woman, her flight suit was immediately unzipped and one of them got busy.

There are more rapes in our own streets than there ever would be on the battlefield. Would you want the mother of your children to be abducted and get raped outside a gas station? I guess you better not let her go get gas alone. At least on the battlefield she has a weapon to protect her. Women want equal rights....let's give it to them. I would be honored to fight next to my wife. She would put the hurt on Saddam.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Draft 'em for duty as cooks, nurses, computer instructors, supplies officers, secretaries, technicians, etc. Deferments for motherhood, altho that could have some perverse consequences.

[TheFilter]

First of all, I don't approve of the draft, but it's important to remember that many jobs in the military are support positions and don't involve combat.

I was in the military, and I'm a woman. I did not see combat during the Gulf War because of the nature of my job. I would have done so willingly if needed though. I'm probably stronger than many men, I'm 6' in combat boots, and a good shot.

That said, I've known lots of women I couldn't imagine in combat, even some of the people I went through basic training with, but I've known men like that, too.

[Steel Wolf]

"If things get so bad we have to start drafting kids, why wouldn't we want women?" asks Schwartz. "Is it chivalry? Stereotypes? I can't think of a good reason."

Neither can I.

That's because you've never been in the military, sweetheart.

Two quick points. (a) Things ARE NOT so bad that we need a draft. (b)There are so many reasons why pulling large numbers of unwilling females into a military organization gearing up for a major conflict is a bad idea, I could take up the entire FR bandwith on it.

[unspun]

Well.... not exactly "perverse," they'd just be doin' what comes naturally (hopefully with husband, that is). grin

[xzins]

On a field training exercise (brigade level) in Germany, I spoke privately with our female brigade surgeon. (I was chaplain.)

She told me that she was embarrassed to be a woman in the brigade because she had yet to see a deployment where at least a third of the females didn't intentionally become pregnant to avoid being deployed. Then more became pregnant while deployed and had to be returned.

The war planners have devised unit structures for effectiveness in combat. If they have 10 people in your section, then those 10 are there for vital reasons related to the mission. They provide expertise, share guard duty, share shifts, etc.

If one third are gone BEFORE you even deploy, you place a tremendous burden on the remaining men to carry an extended load beyond that which is wise.

Do we realize that rendering an opponent 70% of strength in a wargame is to put him in the category of combat questionable?

We have our females doing that to us BEFORE we even deploy!

[unspun]

What you described have certainly been roles of valiant women throughout our history. Hat's off to Molly Pitcher.

[TheFilter]

She told me that she was embarrassed to be a woman in the brigade because she had yet to see a deployment where at least a third of the females didn't intentionally become pregnant to avoid being deployed.

That IS embarrassing. My husband deploys often though, and no women in his squadron have copped out like this, to my knowledge. I have heard that his happened often in the Navy during the last war, however.

Any woman who does this to avoid her duty should be tossed out for breach of contract and lose all veterans' benefits, IMO.

[xzins]

See #6 & 15

[xzins]

see #6

[clamper1797]

Actually ... I would not mind drafting women too. As long as they are kept away from DIRECT combat.