Women can't fight

You can't handle the truth
    By David Bookstaber

The downing of an F-117 stealth bomber near Belgrade reminds us all that even during military operations other than war, combat troops can end up dead or in enemy hands. This is not a good argument against engaging in airstrikes over Yugoslavia. However, the reality of the situation faced by NATO forces is an excellent reminder of why combat troops should not include women.

Some feminists argue that women barred from combat do not have an equal opportunity to serve their country or advance as readily in military ranks as men. Of course, they are right. But in battle a woman isn't equal to a man. There are physical reasons, as well as considerations of morale, that taken together argue that opening the front lines to women would be detrimental to combat operations. In a recent Army survey, only half of male soldiers said they believe women "pull their own load." But how could they? The average woman is five inches shorter than the average man. Her cardio-respiratory capacity is about two-thirds his, her upper-body strength less than half.

The military's solution to inherent physical deficiencies has been "gender-norming" of physical requirements. Practically speaking, this means that women can take jobs with physical qualifications that would disqualify a man. In the beginning, this was part of a decade-long reform to accommodate women by making the military experience, from basic training on up, "kinder 'n gentler." Meanwhile, however, two independent studies of the Army indicated that, objectively, women are physically unqualified for 70 percent of all Army jobs. And in combat, shortcomings in absolute strength can mean the difference between life and death for both a soldier and his teammates.

One can argue that some elite combatants like fighter pilots do not require superior absolute strength. Yet such specialties are similar in many respects to ../sports. Even in low-strength ../sports like polo, for example, there are amateur male athletes that can beat the best females in the world. So it is not clear that there are women who can qualify equally for every combat position.

The case of fighter pilots brings up another interesting question: what is the cost of including women? Nobody could seriously contend that women will increase the combat-effectiveness of the military. Yet millions of dollars were spent to develop ejection seats that wouldn't kill the smaller, more fragile women when fired. It is silly to spend money to accommodate women unnecessarily in a machine whose sole purpose is to defend the United States. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, military organizations should subordinate individual aspirations to the common good.

Of course, in a large population there will likely be some women able to meet just about any standard applied to men. But we should not put women in even physically non-demanding combat positions because they are a far greater liability than men when captured or killed. The only clear case in recent times of women fighting in full-scale combat operations was the Israeli War of Independence in 1948. Israel swore never to do so again: male Israeli troops lost control when they saw women being blown apart, and captive women were sexually brutalized. The army was less effective in combat because men tried to protect women from capture. This conduct, though honorable, was ultimately detrimental to their missions. Rape is also an oft-employed tactic of war. Both of the female POWs in the Gulf War were sexually assaulted during their few weeks in captivity.

Finally, there is the issue of sex. Ten percent of women who serve on Navy ships with men turn up pregnant each year. In some cases, pregnancy is being used to get out of "hell tours"—an escape mechanism unavailable to men. The hardship imposed on those who have to fill in for pregnant soldiers in essential positions severely hurts morale and readiness. And, of course, the normal sexual tension between men and women living and working under stress in close quarters detracts from unit cohesion and operational capability. A 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces "came to the conclusion that placing women in combat aircraft, on combat vessels, or with combat ground forces would be detrimental not only to the social fabric of American culture, but also to the maintenance of U.S. defense capabilities." Efforts by politicians and military staff to ignore these facts are surely a significant cause of the current record decreased levels of both operational readiness and morale within the U.S. armed forces. We need to remember that the military is not a political playground, and that women are not men.

Recent Herald Columns by this Columnist:
NOTE: SITE WILL APPEAR IN A NEW BROWSER WINDOW

• Who needs fashion?, 3/4/99
• Lux et nine-millimeter, 2/19/99
• Fight the damn system, 2/5/99

Back to Opinion...