FREE ESSAY ON WOMEN IN COMBAT

WOMEN IN COMBAT

Women in Combat
In the 1970's, the services traditional attitude toward women was challenged; change was
forced upon a reluctant establishment (Holm, 198). The decision to end the draft was the
catalyst to such change. This decision allowed for women's' participation in the armed
forces in unprecedented numbers. The United States Armed Forces have more female numbers
than any other nation in the world, both in actual numbers and in percentages (Holm,
1982). The drive for an all-volunteer force, along with an "aggressive tide of feminism"
and congressional passage of the equal rights Amendments led to a gradual shift in the
role and status of women in the military (Holm, 1982). In today's military, women were no
longer confined to traditional roles in the medical and administrative fields. Almost all
military job categories and military occupational specialties (MOS) have been opened to
women. They now repair tanks, warplanes, and intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBM's). They serve on naval vessels that deploy to service ships and submarines of the
operational fleet and on Coast Guard cutters operating off United States shores. They
serve on missile crews, operate heavy equipment, and direct air traffic. They also
provide essential support to combat troops in the field (Holm, 1982). It appears that
women have been integrated into practically every aspect of the military; yet there are
some jobs that remain closed to them, namely-direct combat specialties (Holm, 1982;
Goldman, 1982). It is over these residual exclusions that controversy rages.
Technically, women are barred by low or policy from what is defined in narrow terms as
"combat". Each of the United States Armed Services excludes females from active Combat.
The nature and extent of the exclusion varies with each service. Yet, many argue that the
distinction between combat and non-combat becomes blurred in the context of women warfare
(Gilder, 1979; Holm, 1982, Goldman, 1982). In actually, many women are assigned to jabs
that will expose them to enemy attack, and this has been openly acknowledged by the top
Pentagon officials (Women in combat-closer than you think, 1980). The United States Army
has also recognized that women would be deployed in combat zones as an inevitable
consequence of their assignments. This was confirmed in the following statement made by
then Army Chief of Staff, General Bernad W. Rogers: "Some people believe that women
soldiers will not be deployed in the event of hostilities: that they are only to be
part-time soldiers here in peace, gone in war. Women are an essential part of the force;
they will deploy with their units and they will serve in the skills in which they have
been trained" (Holm, 1982, p. 286).
It appears that the combat exclusion policy does not realistically exclude women from
combat, and it seems the military's reliance on women is increasing. Schneider (1988)
conducted interviews with women in traditionally male jobs, asking them what they felt
their status would become if a war broke out. In general, they believed that "...they
could not and would not be removed in combat situation" (p. 162). The following was taken
from two of these interviews. "I've already asked," said a first flight engineer on a
C-5, what happens if I'm sitting on alert in Europe somewhere and something really
happens? Does that mean that they don't have a legal crew anymore because the engineer
can't go?"' A Coast Guard female lieutenant had this to say: '" I was the trained CIC
officer, responsible for the combat information center. Along with a team of radar men,
CIC must plot all enemy and friendly forces and advise the bridge of such things as
incoming missiles.... I'm the one that's used to working with these guys. That was the
purpose of sending us through that simulated training, so that we could get used to
working together as a team. What would they do? They couldn't just fly me off and stick
somebody else in there"' (Schneider, 1988, p.162).
It appears that the United States military is in a position where women are so fully and
flexibly involved in the organizational structure, that in a war, it would be very
difficult to separate them out. Yet, there are those who feel those women are not
physically and mentally capable of withstanding the effects of combat. There are many
grounds on which this argument could be disputed; some are as follows. Women have
contributed greatly in past wars. They have served in combat in many skills during World
War II, Korea, and Vietnam (Holm, 1982). One study (Binkin & Bath, 1977) found that many
NATO and several WARSAW PACT countries employed women in combat roles during World War
II. Russia was reported as using military women on the "front lines". In Israel, where
they are actually conscripted, women have also experienced armed combat. Binkin and Bech
(1977) found that in the first phase of Israel's war of Liberation, "...one out of every
five soldiers was female and they shared equality in both offensive and defensive battle
situations" (p. 134). Holm (1982) found that some 7,500 military women served in S.E.
Asia during the Viet Nam War. She maintains that these women proved "....the modern
American military woman is fully capable of functioning effectively in a military role in
a combat environment, even under direct hostile fire" (p. 207).
The United States Army has even conducted it's own tests to examine the performance of
individual units with women in the field, under simulated combat conditions (Goldman,
1982). The first test, labeled "MAX-WAC" studied women in three-day field exercise, and
assessed their effect on unit performance. The second test, "REF-WAC"," studied women in
thirty-day sustained combat related exercises during the NATO annual "REFORGER" exercises
in Europe. The tests proved that women did not adversely impact unit performance.
According to Goldman (1982), these tests provided a great deal of evidence that military
women can perform on a par with their male peers; and in terms of their psychological
that women are not inferior to men.
In general, military women feel the argument that they are not fit for combat physically
is irrelevant, as combat is no longer characterized by physical activity. The
technological and industrial advances of the twentieth century have caused extensive
changes in the nature of warfare (Goldman, Holm, 1982; Gilder, 1979). Due to this
changing nature of warfare and military technology, "....combat will no longer depend on
bayonets and physical force rather on lasers, microprocessors and other sophisticated
devices that gender obsolete the conventional images of battle" (Gilder, 1979, p. 29).
Clearly advanced technology requires a more highly educated workforce, and it has been
maintained that military women do fit in such category. According to a back ground study
on women in the military done by Commander Richard Hunter, one of the Pentagon's leading
experts on personnel matters, military women are better educated than military men and
score higher on aptitude tests. He found that more than 90% of women recruits have high
school diplomas, compared with only 60% of men, and women aptitude scores are
approximately 20% higher than the men (Gilder, 1979).
Women have clearly demonstrated their capabilities and their potential for future
contributions to the military. Their most recent "victory" was achieved in the Persian
Gulf War. There, women helicopter pilots participated in an air assault for first time.
They were involved in airlifting the 101st Airborne into Iraq, in what has been called
the "largest helicopter action in military history" (GI Jill deserves a shot at combat,
1991, p. 36). In general many feel that the experience of the Persian Gulf War has called
for a new look at the ban on women in combat roles. Indeed, very recently the House Armed
Services Committee took the first step toward abolishing the combat inclusion rule. They
approved legislation authorizing the Pentagon to assign female pilots to fly fighter and
bomber combat missions (GI Jill, 1991). Clearly, this will accelerate the trend already
established toward eliminating women's combat exclusions.
As public opinion is a force in shaping policy, the attitudes of the American public must
also be considered. A national survey of 560 Americans aged eighteen to twenty-four
conducted by the Gallup organization asked the following question concerning women in
combat: "If women are drafted, should they be required to take combat roles as men are,
should they be given combat roles only if they volunteer for them, or should they not be
eligible for them? (Goldman, 1982, p.284). The responses were as follows:
Male Female
Given Combat Roles As Men 12% 9%
Only if Volunteer 61% 74%
Not Eligible 26% 16%
Clearly, the majority of the survey population, men and women alike favored the inclusion
of women in combat roles on a voluntary basis.
A data analysis taken from a General Social Survey done in 1988 reveals similar liberal
attitudes of general population regarding the role of women. When asked to respond to the
statement, "Women should take care of home, not country," it was shown that the majority,
including both male and females respondents, disagreed with the statement. Overall, more
women disagreed than men, but this could be explained by the fact that there were more
women in survey population than men. Yet overall, there were also more women who agreed
than there was men; strikingly the percentages show that men are more likely to disagree
with the statement than women are. The same results were seen when the question "Should
women work" was asked.
Clearly, it has been demonstrated that women are a valuable resource to the military.
Women are thoroughly integrated into the armed forces, and they are now so dependent on
women that it would be virtually impossible to go into combat without them. In large
part, women have already proved themselves. One needs only look at their role in past
wars. Regardless of the combat exclusion rule, women have served in combat roles
throughout out history and it is inevitable that they will need for future combat roles.
War has become much more diverse in the skills it demands. Today, combat is as much a
matter of technical expertise, as physical strength. This increase in skill requirements
further signifies the military's need for all dependence on women; they are currently
serving in highly technical roles.
Along with the changing role of women in the military, American attitudes a nature and
roles of women in our society are also changing. Polls and statistics have shown that
there is a clear tendency toward liberalization in terms of women's roles. Indeed, the
majority of American believes women should be allowed into combat roles if they are
willing. In general, the use of women in essentially combat environments has been
considered successfully, and will certainly have implications for their future roles. It
may take some time for liberal policies to be implemented but the preliminary groundwork
has been laid. In light of the Persian Gulf War, the first significant steps have already
been taken toward allowing military women to serve in combat roles.
Bibliography
Bach, S., & Binkin, M. (1977). Women and the military.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Department of the Army. (1982). Women in the Army policy review.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
GI Jill deserves a shot at combat. (1991, 10 May). Daily News, p. 36.
Gilder, G. (1979, January 28). The case against women in combat.
The New York Times Magazine, p. 29.
Goldman, N. (1982). Female soldiers-combatants or noncombatants?
Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Holm, J. (1982). Women in the military. Novato, California: Presidio Press.
Schneider, Carl& Dorothy. (1988). Sound off. New York: Dutton.
Women in combat: Closer than you think. (1980, 3 March).
U.S. News and World Report, p. 31.