Posted on 05/29/2005 2:58:55 PM PDT by Axhandle
A recent bill that passed the House of Representatives and is en route to the Senate would forbid women from serving in combat support units below brigade level. Let me be the first to say that I have no idea what this means. My brigade has a forward support battalion. That battalion supports the brigade - is that considered "at" brigade level or "below" brigade level? Or is the forward support battalion considered "below" brigade level, by virtue of being a battalion? I have no idea. Unfortunately, it is very hard to tell what the facts are, because of 1) my slower than death internet connection; 2) the fact that about my only news source is Stars and Stripes (usually an outdated copy) which goes into about as much depth as an elementary school newspaper; and 3) the issue is politicized, so there is so much misinformation being put out. I cannot comment on the specifics of the legal mumbo jumbo or the politicking in congress, but I will comment on the role of women in our Army.
First off, I think that the farther that women are removed from the combat, the better. Yes, I know that 1 in 1,000 women can outperform most men on the Army Physical Fitness Test. That is very special. The issue of women in combat, however, is not just one about physical abilities, physiology, agility, hygiene issues, or any other quantifiable measurement. It is about people. Women are different than men. Women are nesters and nurturers and men are protectors and providers. That is not some weird gender-role assignment from a bigoted society. That is basic human nature.
To have an effective Army, we must have cohesive units. It is a different kind of cohesion that is necessary to build an effective fighting force. Whether a unit is all male or mixed-gender has a significant impact upon that cohesion. Cohesion is the key to effective units. Individual capabilities and leadership are prerequisites for an effective force, but the cohesion of the unit determines the degree of effectiveness. The cohesiveness of the team is due to three things - one is the confidence in the capabilities of the other team members, another is the confidence in the leadership that directs the actions of the team, and the final one is the interpersonal dynamics between the team members. Even if we assume women can compete on an individual level with men, in every way imaginable, the interpersonal dynamic remains as a sticking point, when we consider mixed-gender units.
For combat units, the interpersonal dynamic is one of instinct. Soldiers of different sex view each other differently than they view Soldiers of their own sex. An example of a practical application of this concept is to consider this interplay in a firefight. Men are more likely to come to the aid of a fallen female comrade, rather than taking the fight to the enemy. When you are engaged in direct fire, the first and most critical step is to locate, engage and destroy the enemy. Then, you ensure that the area is clear and secure. Then you treat casualties. It is not reasonable to expect male soldiers to focus on those tasks in the correct order of priority, if a female Soldier is wounded. The natural instinct of men is to come to her aid. It is far more acceptable for a man to tell his buddy to "hang in there" until the fight is won, as he should do, in an all-male unit. This is not a reasonable expectation in a mixed gender unit.
In all units, to include combat units, one must also consider the discipline problems that result from normal biological urges and the resultant soap operas that are prevalent in mixed-gender units. From physical training in the morning, until final formation in the evening, it is amazing to see all of the hand-holding, flirting, courting, dating, and intimate physical contact that occurs in mixed-gender units. When deployed for training center rotations or real-world deployments, the breakdown in discipline is absurd. The amount of inappropriate sexual relations in garrison is bad, but it is ridiculous when deployed. I do not know if this is because the women are seeking a relationship to make them feel more secure, or if it is just because of the increased time that the men and women spend around each other creating more opportunities, but it truly is crazy. I would be curious to know how many condoms are sold to Soldiers deployed to Kuwait and Iraq (as well as the number of single Soldiers who have gotten pregnant and the number of married Soldiers who have been impregnated by men other than their husbands). I have been to post exchanges in Kuwait and Iraq and seen male and female Soldiers buying multiple 12-packs of condoms at a time. I suppose that I could assume that they are using them for innocent purposes, such as keeping the sand out of their barrels, but I am not that naive. A female Soldier who wants sex can have it anytime and anywhere. The soap operas that result from male competition for women damages cohesion by undermining trust and creating counterproductive rivalries. This makes the unit a less effective fighting force. You must have total confidence in your comrades, when under fire. If you are wondering if your buddy is pursuing the same girl that you have a crush on, or that your girlfriend is cheating on you with your buddy, then this confidence is shattered. Those problems come about often in mixed gender units and are multiplied by the inevitably lopsided male to female ratio.
Now, let us return to the issue of physical ability. I pretended that this was not an issue in the preceding four paragraphs. But, it is an issue. Let us consider that I am totally off base in the two paragraphs above, regarding interpersonal dynamics, biology, instinct, and office romances. Let us assume that those are non-issues and that the role of woman should focus solely on some type of physical prowess or lack thereof. There are some exceptional women who can perform at the same level or better than many men. Why are they not allowed to serve in any position? Why not have an evaluation committee that decides on whether certain exceptional women can serve in combat roles or in combat support roles below the brigade level? Well, this is where the issues of rights and efficiency come into play. Why should the Army dedicate resources to making such evaluations? That would be a pretty inefficient use of manpower and resources. And to what end? Just so that some women who want to be in the infantry, or who want to be mechanics in an armor unit, or who want to be combat medics can realize their dream? Sorry, but that is not what the Army is for. When you become a Soldier, your work is not about your rights. It is about the Army first, your subordinates second (if you have any subordinates), and then you. As a Soldier, you are providing a service, not the other way around. If you want your rights recognized, then get out of the Army, because this is not where you belong. The Army is not the line of work that you should pursue if you are worried about recognition of your rights. The Army is about serving your country, so that your countrymen can live in freedom. So, the issue of rights is a non-issue. You have no right to join the infantry, to serve as a mechanic in an armor unit, or to be a combat medic. You do those jobs if the Army needs you to do them and if our civilian leadership gives the Army the flexibility to assign you to those positions.
People who whine about their "right to serve" annoy the hell out of me, because they just do not get it. Your right to serve amounts to your right to join the Army. The Army determines what capacity you serve in and the Army's flexibility in making that decision is determined by the civilian leadership. To be assigned to a job that you want or enjoy is a privilege, not a right. I feel for you if you do not like that, but I also would not have it any other way. The mission must come first. The Army's mission is to fight and win our nation's wars. If we put the privileges of our members before our mission, then the mission suffers and our rights suffer along with it. Ultimately, our rights rest upon the ability of our military to defend them. How ironic it would be if a less effective force were created, in the interest of rights, only to see those rights denied, because the less effective force could not defend them.
I think that the Army bowed to pressure to integrate women too much into our force and it has been detrimental to our capabilities. Now, it has become the norm and our bureaucracy, in normal bureaucratic fashion, views this as "the way that it has always been." We smoked Iraq in Desert Storm and we toppled the Ba'ath regime in three weeks, so why fix what is not broken, right? Just because the enemy is more inept, that does not mean that we are functioning properly. The discipline problems in our combat support units impacts the level of support that our combat units receive and is detrimental to the mission, in my opinion. Congress needs to tell the Army: "no more social engineering. Women have a real and important role to play in our hospitals and offices. Stop screwing around by pretending that they have a role on the battlefield."
Just my two cents - hopefully it is worth that much.
My brigade has a forward support battalion. That battalion supports the brigade - is that considered "at" brigade level or "below" brigade level?
Your FSB is considered Brigade level.
7th Trans. Were you there when the two folks when the guy and gal from 10th Bn got their Somalia purple hearts? One piece of shrapnel went through her shoulder into his stomach while they were supposed to be sleeping in their cots...you do the math. I'm sure their are plenty of warrants who can talk you you about it...this was during the "Labinista" regime...
One piece of shrapnel went through her shoulder into his stomach while they were supposed to be sleeping in their cots...you do the math.
Penetrated directly through her shoulder into his stomach from the air...the giggling in formation while the award was being given indicated the incident was not lost on the troops.
Actually, you were right and that was what the big stink was about: women would be taken out of FSB's since they were below Brigade level.
Boys and girls will be boys and girls.
...and it will never be a problem, unless of course we get into another Tet or Pusan or Bastonge. Then unit cohesion and effectiveness will be important and men will die when it is not.
I only saw that problem one time – on the Army’s MV Sutton (nicknamed “slutten”) in 1977 when I was on a training cruise. Women had only recently been integrated into the Army’s navy and some skippers didn’t know how to handle it.
When I became a skipper I never saw the problem. Men and women were complete equals, and any that couldn’t hack it were gone. My crews always had a brother/sister relationship. The men wouldn’t even think of dating another crewmember – and sex was definitely out. It wasn’t that I was unaware, we had tight knit crews of about a dozen people. The LCUs only had one berthing compartment and one head.
Maybe that was one of the reasons there was never a problem. With a small close crew everyone knew everyone else’s business.
The problem is that when it comes to moving P250 pumps or manning a two-man stretcher they can't do it. The navy found that even after training 99% of females were not capable of performing those tasks (1992 report to the president on women in the military). If the ones on your vessel could do it, you had some exceptional females.
I had some exceptional females because I only kept exceptional crew.
In the basic seamanship school, one of the physical tests was to carry two 5 gallon cans of red lead primer (back when we used red lead) a distance of about 20 yards. Those who couldn’t do it were assigned to another school. On the boats, the skipper had the say of who stayed and who left. I would rather be short a body than have a body that couldn’t work.
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.