LtCol in the AF stands up for her rights

CHARLOTTESVILLE--When Lt. Col. Martha McSally takes to the skies, she is the embodiment of a modern-day hero: courageous, selfless, and loyal to God and country. She is a patriot who has willingly put her life on the line to protect American interests abroad--a perfect example of how far women have come in their fight for equality.

But upon Lt. Col. McSally's landing at the Saudi Arabian base where she was stationed with the Air Force to carry out combat search-and-rescue missions for operations in the Middle East, her faithful service to her country was quickly overshadowed by one unavoidable fact: She is a woman.

Because she is a woman, when off the base McSally--the United States' highest-ranking female fighter pilot--was required by military policy to wear the traditional Muslim abaya, a head-to-toe robe and head covering that is perceived as a sign of subordination to men.

This is in spite of her religious objections--McSally is a Christian--and her repeated requests that she be allowed to wear appropriate American clothing, as her male counterparts do. The policy, which applies to all female joint-operations military personnel in the U.S. Armed Forces in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia--about 1,000 servicewomen in all--went so far as to force servicewomen to ride in the back of military vehicles, subordinate even to the men under their command.

Neither the U.S. State Department nor the government of Saudi Arabia actually requires American service members to wear traditional Muslim attire for any reason. In fact, the Saudis do not require non-Muslim women to wear the abaya at all. And servicemen are actually prohibited from wearing traditional male Muslim clothing while off base. Indeed, the regulation requiring McSally to wear the abaya is a peculiarly American rule.

Furthermore, although Islamic values and cultures in other countries such as Kuwait, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are as strong as they are in Saudi Arabia, the military has yet to place similar restrictions on female military personnel stationed in those, or any other, countries.

The Department of Defense has made a concerted effort to argue that the Saudi dress policy is necessary for "force protection." However, a careful examination of Saudi culture and U.S. protocol for Americans in Saudi Arabia shows this not to be so.

During Desert Storm and in the years immediately following, the DoD did not require servicewomen to wear the abaya at all. Prior to 1994, when the abaya policy was first introduced, servicemen and servicewomen were merely required to wear their military uniforms when off base. And as recently as 1999, the military stated that the policy was in place to appease the muttawa, a self-appointed Saudi religious police.

Through its selective application only to female military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia (female embassy personnel and wives of servicemen are not required to wear the abaya), the dress policy is inherently irrational and contradicts the force protection argument. Had there truly been a need to protect American women, all women would have been required to wear the garment.

To McSally, a decorated officer who has flown 100 combat hours over Iraq and has served as flight commander and trainer for combat pilots deployed to Kosovo and South Korea, the policy seemed to contradict the very principles she and so many other brave Americans have been fighting for. That is, the right to express one's religious beliefs freely; the right not to be forced to adopt someone else's religious beliefs; the right to be treated equally; and the right not to be subjected to gender discrimination.

For several years before being assigned to Saudi Arabia, McSally had been working within the system to have the dress policy for Saudi Arabia changed. And for as many years military brass promised policy reviews that never took place.

But when she was assigned to Saudi Arabia, the issue became much more personal. So McSally once again voiced her personal objections to the policy--and requested accommodation of her beliefs. Two days prior to her departure for Saudi Arabia, McSally received e-mails from military personnel threatening her with court-martial if she didn't follow the order to wear the abaya. Even before she'd set foot on Saudi soil, the U.S. military was forcing her to decide between following an order or following her conviction as an officer and a Christian.

One military commander did urge her to keep working within the system--to abide by the policy long enough to get to the Saudi base, to give the military brass stationed in Saudi Arabia the chance to see her as an officer, a warrior, a fighter pilot--so that she would have a better chance of bringing about change from within. So McSally flew into Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, only to be met by a young enlisted man who informed her that she had to sit in the back of the vehicle and cover herself with an abaya.

During the course of the 13 months that followed, there were numerous times when McSally found herself having to decide between following her faith and oath of office or following an order she believed to be unconstitutional.

Finally, she decided it was time to have the third branch of the government take a look at the policy. "I'm a follower of Christ, and my Christian faith is the centerpiece of who I am. To be forced to put on the garment of a religion that I do not believe in and a faith I do not follow, to me, was unacceptable," she said. "Second, the women whom this affects--the officers and enlisted personnel serving over there--we are putting our lives on the line to serve our nation, and we are over in Saudi Arabia as officials of the United States government and the United States military, doing a mission alongside the men."

Within a matter of weeks after the suit had been filed and had taken the media by storm, General Tommy Franks issued a new directive about the abaya. Local commanders would revise policies on wearing the full-body garment from mandatory to "strongly encouraged."

Ultimately, the lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld comes down to several key constitutional issues. One is the freedom of religion. McSally was, in effect, forced to wear a religious outfit required by Islamic law and to pretend she's Muslim, which violates her religious freedom as a Christian.

The second is a course of action embraced in the terms of the once-legislated and then judicially overturned (not because the principle was erroneous, but because the act gained its power over the states by improperly invoking the commerce clause) Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says that if the government in any way violates a person's religious freedom, it has to show a compelling state interest to do so. Even if a compelling state interest can be shown, the government has to show that it is being accomplished by the least restrictive means possible.

Third is the freedom of speech. By forcing McSally to wear the abaya, the military was indirectly forcing her to voice a belief that is not her own--namely, to buy into what the abaya symbolizes: that women are the property of men.

Fourth is an establishment clause concern. Because the government purchased the abayas as military issue and forced women to wear them, it was establishing a religion and, thus, violating the separation of church and state.

And finally, there is freedom from gender discrimination. This military policy is obviously targeted at American military women. It's clear that women are treated differently than men according to the policy, and, therefore, it's a violation of the constitution.

With the attention of the world upon us, is the disparaging treatment of servicewomen an example we want to set for how to respect women and those members of our armed forces who are placing their lives on the line to protect our freedoms?

As a result of intense media coverage over the lawsuit, some further policy revisions were instituted, making it strongly recommended, rather than required, that a woman sit in the back seat and be accompanied by a male when off base. Citing these changes, attorneys for Rumsfeld filed a motion in federal court, asking that McSally's case be dismissed.

However, contending that, in a military environment, a strongly encouraged or recommended statement by a four-star general to a young enlisted woman can easily be construed as an order, McSally and her attorneys are pushing forward. McSally wants to know that in six months' time, someone won't come right back and make the policy mandatory again.

As McSally says from her own experience, "I've been in several situations where I was strongly encouraged to do something, and that was essentially a code word that we had all better do whatever they were talking about. So this language is troubling, because I would hope that the abaya would truly be optional, that a woman would feel free to make an informed choice as to whether she wants to wear it or not, and that nobody would be coercing her, even subtly."

McSally and servicewomen like her now have the backing of the Congress, which voted unanimously in both the House and the Senate in favor of an amendment to prohibit the Department of Defense from requiring or even formally urging servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya. Members of the House Armed Services Committee are now conferring on whether to add force-protection language to the amendment--a move that would weaken a bill designed to protect the constitutional rights of servicewomen.

No matter what happens regarding the abaya legislation before Congress, some of the issues within the lawsuit must still be resolved. For example, one of the central claims in the lawsuit involves charges that superior officers retaliated against McSally for speaking out against the policy. That issue remains to be decided by the judge.

There are some who have criticized McSally for addressing these issues during a time of war. But it is especially during times of crisis that we must rely on our government to respect and stand by the freedoms afforded us in our constitution. McSally took an oath of office to defend the Constitution--she is willing to lay down her life for it and for the freedoms embodied within it. As a loyal citizen of the United States, she has a right to enjoy the same freedoms she has sworn to defend.

John W. Whitehead is one of Lt. Col. McSally's lawyers in her suit against the Department of Defense. He is the founder and president of The Rutherford Institute.

Since I have a real problem with putting women in fighter aircraft anyway, I'll pass on this one.

Our local p.c. problem needs to be addressed before we start worrying about being p.c. in other countries.

If they do not accept our brave men and women as they are, it is time for Saudia Arabia to take care of all its defense needs by itself with their pilots not ours. This PC crap has got to go.

I agree with McSally. However, she will have brought harm to her career by taking her stand against the "brass." The Air Force doesn't like trouble makers, however right they may be in the long run. They will take action against her in subtle ways. At her pay grade, a bad fitness report isn't necessary to finish her. A phone call by her commander will do.

Take it from someone who's been there.

I think each of you make a good point.

This is not a fight over "rights". It is a disagreement over policy. No military has a "right" to dress in a certain way in a foreign land. The superiors have set a policy on this issue, and it is this Air Force officer's duty to folow that policy. Despite this news "reporter's" obvious preferences, the stated policy violates no "right" based on Womanhood.

Anyone can have an opinion about whether the policy is necessary or wise, but to make this some kind of civil rights issue is absurd.

I would "strongly encourage" all women who leave the base in SA be accompanied by men. Preferably at least a squad of heavily armed men who will make sure that the women will not be victims to a gang of terrorists acting under the cover of religion. Since this gang of terrorists includes most of the Saudi government and royal family they should be treated accordingly.

"The superiors have set a policy on this issue, and it is this Air Force officer's duty to folow that policy"

An American officer ought to be able to dress herself appropriately when out of uniform in a foreign country, and should be allowed to do so using her own judgement, not that of some REMF policymaker.

I firmly believe McSally should be given a court martial for the BS she has caused.

1) You sign away a lot of your "constitutional" rights when you join the military.

2) The only reason there is a military presence in Saudi Arabia is because they have given us permission to be there. And, when in Rome, you do as the Romans do.

3) I am quite frankly sick and tired of this attitude, "I can do anything I want because I am an American." No, you can't. When you go into a foreign land, even as part of the US military, you are subject to that nation's laws and penalties. If you do not like that, you don't go to that country. Period.

I wondered if she didn't look more like a man than a woman. She could have dressed like a man and the MP's would never have known, let alone the Saudi's

Why don't you send the Lt. Col. your address, then she can pay you a visit...in her A-10 Warthog.

Preferably at least a squad of heavily armed men who will make sure that the women will not be victims to a gang of terrorists acting under the cover of religion

Just let the women check out an M-16 and a bandoleer of ammo, along with a sidearm, preferably a 1911A1 but the Berretta if that's all they've got. The whip wielders are a bunch of cowards anyway. The same sort that shot Afghan women in the back of the head with and AK-47 for not properly wearing their version of the Muslim gunnysack.

stated policy violates no "right" based on Womanhood.

And nobody claims it does. However it does violate serval clauses of the Constitution, and thus consitutes and illegal order. The wearing of the "bag" is an inherently religious act, insisted upon by the religious "police". Therefore to order someone to wear it, especially when it's not required by Saudi law, or of non-military American women in Saudi, is to compel the wearer to practice a religion not their own. It is the same as requiring Jewish officers to wear a crucifix while off duty in Italy, Germany or France.

When you go into a foreign land, even as part of the US military, you are subject to that nation's laws and penalties

The only thing is that Saudi law does not require non-muslim women to dress that way. It's just that not doing so offends the whip wielders, the religious "police". As the story states, non military American women, be they military dependents, oil industry workers or dependents, or civilisan US government employees or dependents, are not required, by Saudi law or US policy to wear the bag, nor to sit in the back of the vehicle. The policy was probably put in place by some well meaning staff puke, and should never have been upheld by the local command structure in the first place.

Apparently you did not read the article completely. There is NO requirement or even a suggestion from the host country for American females to wear these religious garments. Our military instigated this situation and it runs contrary to her beliefs and in her shoes I would do the same thing. As far as giving up your "constitutional" rights, that only goes so far. If your commander tells you to fire upon civillians for no particular reason, you are required to tell them, No! In America, we do not rquire foreigners to attend any particlar church, wear any particular garments, not even to speak our language. How is America being unreasonable to want the same courtesies anywhere else? Again, there was no law requiring her to wear anything you just didn't read the article before you spotted off.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.