Posted on 08/12/2002 3:13:52 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
Female Combatants, Islam and the Multicultural-Feminist Divide
“Faith is a thing to be respected, especially when it has no apparent supports but in the soul” G. K. Chesterton
In the fall of 1995, a F-15E “Strike Eagle” squadron deployed to Saudi Arabia to enforce no-fly zone restrictions. This deployment was normal in every respect but one—it was the first time the United States sent a female fighter pilot to fly combat missions in a combat zone. This was risky beyond merely introducing a female combatant into a combat environment. It was risky because a western infidel female combatant was being sent to Saudi Arabia to fly combat missions to defend Saudi Arabia. Did you get that? A western infidel female combatant was going to defend the center of the Islamic faith. Because of potentially negative political-military implications associated with her deployment, discussions were held in the Pentagon to determine how best to handle potential negative Saudi reaction when news of her deployment became known. I took part in those discussions.
In the Pentagon we accepted the fact that Saudi objections would be rooted in cultural and religious factors. You see, Saudi Arabian culture and religious laws are fairly repressive when it comes to women. In Saudi, for example, females are not allowed to travel unaccompanied, drive cars, or even leave the home without a male relative. They are barred by law from serving in the military also. Now, here we were, introducing a Western infidel female fighter pilot into the proverbial center of the Islamic faith. This action was an insult to the Saudi people, the Islamic faith and a violation of Saudi law. And worst of all, hardly multicultural.
Multiculturalism insists all cultures and societies are equal, and as equals one culture has no claim over another. Consequently, if we unilaterally sent a female combatant to Saudi Arabia we would be violating Saudi law (such as it is) and behaving like cultural imperialists. We would be telling Saudi they are wrong in their treatment of women. But, if we can’t deploy a female combatant to Saudi, where does that leave the feminist agenda?
If you are a combatant you have to be able to deploy anywhere, at anytime. Therefore, if we bow to multicultural pressures and remove a female combatant from a deployment, we would be impeaching the whole idea of women in combatant roles. In addition, it would hardly be fair to the male combatants that would have to deploy in her place. (With the result that female fighter pilots get to enjoy all the fun of flying fighters in all the great places, but none of the misery of deploying to the world's hell-holes.)
Therefore, as you can see, our Pentagon discussions wedged us between two conflicting agendas. On the one hand we were committed to equal opportunities for women in combatant roles, and on the other hand we were supposed to be sensitive to other cultures. What to do?
We came up with three courses of action on how to deal with the situation; 1) unilaterally and overtly deploy female combatants to Saudi Arabia (the feminist solution), 2) do not deploy female combatants to Saudi Arabia (the multicultural solution), and 3) deploy her and hope no one notices (the bureaucrat approach).
After careful deliberations and intense debate a decision was made. Not surprisingly the bureaucrats decided upon the bureaucratic solution, that is, send her and hope no one notices. As it turned out, no one did notice, initially, as Southern Watch missions were back page news anyway.
However, while in Saudi problems were encountered. These problems ranged from Saudi air traffic controllers refusing to speak to female pilots, to Saudi fighter pilots refusing to fly coalition-training missions when a female pilot would take part, and the local religious police on the lookout for the combatant that dare violate religious law. These problems came as no surprise to those of us with experience in the region.
But wait, isn’t it true that we sent thousands of women to Saudi to serve in Operation Desert Shield and Storm, and Saudi Arabia accepted their presence at that time? Yes, but that isn’t the whole story.
It became clear during the early stages of Operation Desert Shield that the presence of US female non-combatants was creating quite a stir. However, because of the direct threat to Saudi Arabian national survival, the King of Saudi Arabia, supported reluctantly by his Islamic leadership, allowed Western females in combat support roles only, not in combatant roles. Now, it follows then that years later, when the threat to national survival is gone, the Saudis would try to reestablish their cultural and religious standards. And as good multiculturalists, who are we to object?
Fast forward to today. Fairly recent we had Lt Col Martha McSally (a "senior ranking" female fighter pilot) complain publicly about having to wear an abaya when off base in the region. Being forced to wear an abaya, according to McSally, is a violation of her rights, and this is true if we required she wear the abaya while in the United States. However, given the fact the United States doe not have a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Saudi, thereby allowing for no protections or exemptions from local law, it is absurd that McSally would insist upon her rights, because absent a SOFA, she has no rights.
In her defense, McSally points out that US State Department women in the Saudi are not required to wear the abaya. This is true, but it has apparently not occurred to McSally that Saudi Arabia or Kuwait are not the United States and, therefore, the Bill of Rights does not have to be respected by the Saudi/Kuwaiti people or government--especially when there is no legal requirement to do so (no SOFA). In addition, McSally overlooks the fact that the Department of Defense is not the State Department, and State Department women are not violating Saudi law by their mere presence. Therefore, McSally, if she had any sense, would try and keep a low profile. Indeed, she should keep her presence low-key for two reasons, United States national security interests and to avoid being targeted by the local population and religious authorities.
McSally’s “I am woman hear me roar” snit is childish and does not reflect well on the “senior ranking female fighter pilot.” She just comes off as a brat, not an officer, and most certainly not as a fighter pilot. Fighter pilots are well known for their egos, but fighter pilots are also known for selfless dedication to God, country and the mission. I am a former fighter pilot, I know fighter pilots, and let me tell you, Lt Col McSally is no fighter pilot.
Women (homosexuals et al.) do not have some right to serve.
"This action was an insult to the Saudi people, the Islamic faith and a violation of Saudi law. And worst of all, hardly multicultural."The Islamic faith is an insult to the people of the world and especially to those foolish enough to believe it. It cannot be allowed to interfere with U.S. law. And furthermore it is hardly multicultural.
The President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff should decide who will serve in the military. If foreigners don't like their decision--too bad. They'll have to get used to it.
Regardless of one's role or function or reason for being in in Saudi Arabia, we are still guests in their country. It is a mutually beneficial, though culturally chafing, relationship. Even though I agree that women are not even up to second class citizen status in Saudi Arabia, for her to deliberately demand that the hosts change their belief system to accomodate a guest is rather presumptious, if not outright rude. Definitely not the behaviour of an officer.
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.