"Decisions on what roles women should play in war must be based on military standards, not women's rights."—General Norman Schwarzkopf
As the U.S. Marine Corps moves into the 21st century, the debate about women in combat will become more intense. Proponents of women in combat—both military and civilian—are beginning to question seriously the reasons for excluding women from ground combat roles. If the Marine Corps is to maintain its present level of combat readiness with all-male ground combat units, it must be ready and able to defend its policies.
Women are an invaluable and essential component of the armed forces and possess as much intelligence, skill, tenacity, and sense of purpose as men. This has been proved in every American war, whether women served as nurses or as pilots. Nevertheless, the issue of women in ground combat goes beyond equal opportunity and egalitarianism.
Since the repeal of the Risk Rule in October 1994 by the late-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, the military no longer can exclude women from combat flying and combat support roles simply because they are trying to protect women from the ravages of war. Today, more than ever, the Marine Corps must have a straight, consistent definition of "ground combat"—including its clear distinction from support roles—in order to justify excluding women from those assignments.
An important issue discussed in the final report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services (1992) was the physical difference between men and women. The Commission reported that female upper body strength is about 50- 60% of men's, and that female aerobic capacity is about 70-75% of men's. The Commission said that "Research studies have identified the need for a high level of aerobic capacity and muscular strength for a variety of Marine Corps combat tasks performed in desert, high altitude/cold weather, amphibious and jungle environments." Some critics claim that the physical standards need not be so high, because technological developments have turned war into the equivalent of a Nintendo game. In fact, however, technology has made the battlefield even more lethal and physically demanding. The pack a soldier carried during World War II weighed about 40 pounds. Today's infantrymen carry packs that can weigh more than 100 pounds primarily because of new technologies we now use in war.
Differences in physical strength, however, are only part of the reason why women should not be brought into ground combat units. Sexuality is an issue that must be dealt with carefully, because the ground combat environment does not encompass the luxury of privacy. Advocates of women in combat claim that soldiers can be trained properly to conduct themselves in an asexual, professional manner—after all, men and women have been able to work together effectively in all other military jobs. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between normal working hours during the week and going out on 10-, 20-, or even 30-day patrols into enemy territory. Sexual tension or misconduct can destroy unit cohesion, which is so necessary for survival in war. Dr. Judith A. Reisman, former consultant for the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services was quoted by Mike Trout in a Focus on the Family broadcast in 1995 as saying:
"The idea that women are going to make it as one of the boys isn't going to work for the very simple reason that they aren't one of the boys. You are trying to simplify one of the most complex human elements. Blurring the sexual lines during extended close encounters in stressful situations will only increase sexual harassment and even rape, and greatly increase immorality."
Some argue that allowing women to compete for any job in the military will result in better treatment and more respect for military women, reasoning that women are perceived as "second-class citizens" because they are excluded from the military's primary reason for existence—combat. This argument is a convenient but invalid excuse why sexual discrimination and harassment occur. As Dr. Reisman stated, bringing women into ground combat will not fix the problem and will only make it . worse—because placing men and women together in such a stressful and brutal environment only opens a Pandora's Box of complications.
Most arguments about women in combat are rooted in human nature. Proponents of women in combat believe that undesirable aspects of human behavior such as sexual misconduct, jealousy, favoritism, and even modesty can be modified through appropriate training. To a certain extent, this may be true. Nevertheless, the notion that men and women can be trained to live together in close quarters for extended periods under enormous stress, without sexual misconduct having a negative impact on unit morale and cohesion, is a Utopian fantasy. Experience shows that certain elements of human behavior cannot be eradicated, no matter how much training is put into it; the brutal aspects of the combat environment will only increase tensions between men and women. Which philosophical approach will dominate?
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of human nature being debated is whether men can be trained to deal with women the same way they deal with other men, in such a violent and stressful environment. Can—or should—men trained not to be so protective of women in hostile situations? This question lies at the very heart of the debate, because of its ethical implications. Opponents of women in combat believe that such an instinct will interject a dangerous and often deadly distraction into the battlefield. Proponents believe that men can be trained to not react that way toward female soldiers.
If the desire of men to protect women is instinctive—not environmental—then no amount of training will fully eradicate it. But if anyone could eradicate some of these protective tendencies, what would the consequences be—to the military, and to our full society? Is it morally correct to desensitize men to keep them from overreacting when female combatants are tortured or raped before their eyes? It is difficult enough to train men to cope with the horrors that war inflicts on other men; in addition, there are moral and social consequences in forcing our infantrymen to cope with the horrors that war inflicts on women. Women often are hit the hardest during war. The 4 January 1993 issue of Newsweek magazine commented on the atrocities—such as the rape camps—committed against Bosnian women. The author wrote:
Sexual trespass on the enemy's women is one of the satisfactions of conquest, like a boot in the face—for once he is handed a rifle and told to kill, the soldier becomes an adrenaline-rushed young man with permission to kick in the door, to grab, to steal, to give vent to his submerged rage against all women who belong to other men.
The 20th century is full of examples where women become the innocent victims of war. If female civilians are treated in this manner by enemy soldiers, just think of the treatment that would await captured female soldiers.
Supporters of women in combat believe that most Americans favor it. After all, a Newsweek poll published 05 August 1991 showed that 52% of those questioned favored women being assigned to ground combat units. In 1992, however, the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces conducted a similar poll (the Roper Poll) and found that 45% of the civilians questioned favored direct ground combat assignments for women and only if they volunteer. The Roper Poll also questioned military personnel and found that only 30% of those polled favored ground combat assignments for women. The disparity in such results is surprising: which group is more likely to understand what ground combat actually entails?
In the 104th Congress, 39% of the members have served on active duty, or in the National Guard or Reserve. However, most of these men served during the draft periods of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. As we move into the next century, the percentage of senators and congressmen who have some type of military background will decrease dramatically, creating an even wider rift between the military and its civilian leadership. In the future, the Marine Corps will have a harder time justifying ground combat exclusion policies to a Congress that has little military experience or understanding of the combat environment. During a Focus on the Family broadcast in 1992, Colonel Ronald Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired), a Vietnam veteran who served his country for over 28 years, described the combat environment:
The battlefield is this idea of sustainment. It is going into a dehumanized environment where there are really very few rules . . . where a group of men are gathered together systematically to destroy another group of men. And there, an offensive, fighting spirit that can only carry you through, and it's the ability to depend on the man on your right and the man on your left, knowing that there's no "weak link" anywhere in your military unit.
A few years ago, Canada lifted all combat exclusions for women—except for service on submarines because of the extreme lack of privacy. In its final report, the Presidential Commission stated:
The Canadians invited women from both inside and outside the military to join the infantry. Although 103 women were interested in joining the infantry, none of them were pre-screened or required to meet any minimum standard. Consequently, attrition was severe due primarily to physical and endurance factors with only one woman graduating. Shortly after graduating, she was reassigned to another unit.
Shortly after their attempt to integrate women into the infantry, infantry MOS PT standards [physical requirements] were "modified" to "reflect actual requirements." In other words, the Canadian military lowered its physical standards to accommodate women. The physical fitness test male and female soldiers must now take to enter the infantry requires soldiers to carry only another soldier of the same weight. Infantry packs also must be limited to only 50 pounds. Moreover, Canada is not alone; the Danish military also lifted all bans on combat for women. Once again, FT standards were lowered. Currently the only physical fitness test used for Danish soldiers (male and female) to enter combat units is a requirement to run 2.1 kilometers in 12 minutes. When questioned by the President's Commission on reasons the Danes had lifted their combat exclusions, the Danish military briefer stated that "Combat readiness is not an overarching concern of the Danish military. They believe they will have ample time to prepare their forces as conflicts present themselves."
We cannot gender-norm the battlefield. The only other option is to create similar standards for both men and women. But how far can the military lower standards, without further risk to soldiers' lives? Canada has clearly has demonstrated that the only way women will be able to qualify for ground combat roles is by lowering the physical requirements. And even though we have gender-normed the physical standards at the U.S. service academies and in basic training to accommodate women, it is not the same as ground combat. No one gets killed when the training standards are modified; the battlefield, however, is not so accommodating.
The Marine Corps must take these recent attacks on the ground combat exclusion policies most seriously, and lay down its combat exclusion policies for both direct and supporting combat roles—and stick to them. Consistent and reasonable physical requirements—justified through years of combat experience—must be established firmly and then enforced. Because sexual misconduct—e.g., fraternization and sexual harassment—hurts unit moral and effectiveness, the Corps must continue its human-relations training and emphasize the important contributions that men and women both continue to make.
It will become increasingly difficult to defend ground combat exclusion policies. The military will have a more difficult time justifying certain forms of discrimination to civilians and the Congress, who place such enormous emphasis on individual freedom and individual rights. Along the same line, the military also must continue to stress that it is a society where all too often the needs of the group must be placed before the needs of the individual. The military cannot function unless its members are willing to subvert their needs and desires to the needs of the service—because wars are won through group effort, not individual effort.
Physical differences, human nature, and sexual differences combine as proof enough that all-male ground combat units are the most desirable option—one that will yield the fewest causalities. That is the truth. I know I cannot speak for all military women, but I do think the truth is unfair. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore or disregard it, because military policies must be based on the truth—not on the way we might like things to be.
Lieutenant Boussey was graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1991. At present, she is assigned to the Education Branch, Headquarters, Air Force ROTC, at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.