Post by -Valoniah- on Jan 30, 2012 18:25:50 GMT -5
I actually wrote a paper on this a few years ago, I've read it agin and I still feel the same way.
Nicholas Yund
POL-103
Dr. Kanjula
Women in Combat
Throughout history women have been involved in warfare. From biblical times to the current War on Terrorism, women have done everything from spying to fighting guerrilla warfare. But what should the role of women in the U.S. military be? Should they be tasked only to support roles? Should they be allowed to engage in direct combat operations? What kind of combat operations? Modern warfare finds combat on the land, on the sea, and in the air. Which, if not all, are suitable for women warriors? It is my belief that women be allowed on air combat missions, combat naval vessels, and have their own segregated ground combat units.
Following the Persian Gulf War a commission was tasked by the President of the United States to answer these very questions. Their report took eight months to complete and gave a comprehensive overview of the roles in which women should partake and why. The first role they explored was women in the U.S. Air force. According to the commission’s research women are physically and mentally capable of flying combat aircraft at the same level of that as men; however concerns were raised over women affecting unit cohesion. A survey amongst military pilots in the Navy, Marines, and Air Force found that 69% of pilots were against allowing women to serve in combat squadrons (Presidential Report 1993 29). Another concern raised was the increased odds of capture for combat pilots. Evidence suggest that male POW’s are inclined to protect women POW’s and that women receive harsher treatment form the enemy (Presidential Report 1993 28).
Women have been serving on naval vessels since the 1970’s. All these ships were tenders and service vessels not assigned to combat duty. In 1987 women began to serve onboard Combat Logistics Force ships. These are ships that supply combat ships, and in 1991 they began to serve on training vessels. It has been found that the inclusion of women on all these vessels had no negative effects on readiness or performance and it has been concluded that there is little difference in the manual labor performed on combat and non combat naval vessels. Both types of ships require a plethora of physical tasks. Although men generally perform better at physical task, the importance of physical fitness on ships continues to be an issue of debate. Another factor in female integration on combat vessels is the lack of privacy and few amenities. Space for living quarters on all ships is at a minimum, but on combat ships the little available space is designed for men, and modifications would be required to house women. Cost of the modifications, depending on the ship, could cost millions of dollars. This makes ship modifications for women an unpopular idea for many (Presidential Report 1993 31-32). The commission felt it important to consider the American public’s attitude towards women serving on combat vessels. In a survey, 83% said they favored women being assigned to combat vessels. Of those who had at one time served in the military 72% said women should be assigned to combat vessels (Presidential Report 1993 32).
Of all the forms of combat, the commission’s report on ground combat was the most extensive. Ground combat units include infantry, armor, artillery, and combat engineers, and all include the inherent dangers associated with close quarter’s combat, those risks being capture, injury, and death. Despite the technological advances of warfare, the physical demands of ground troops have not decreased. Soldiers often must survive with little to no amenities and in the harshest of climates. Physical tasks include digging, heavy lifting and hand to hand fighting. The physical differences between women and men were obvious to the commission. Women are smaller in terms of height and weight, and have less muscle mass than men. These factors place women at a disadvantage when performing the tasks associated with ground combat units (Presidential Report 1993 24-25). The most significant deciding factor for the commission was the effects of women on unit cohesion. Cohesion was defined by the commission as follows: “ …the relationship that develops in a unit or group where: (1) members share common values and experiences; (2) individuals in the group conform to group norms and behavior in order to ensure group survival or goals; (3) members lose their personal identity in favor of a group identity; (4) members focus on group activities and goals; (5) members become totally dependent on each other for the completion of the mission or survival; and (6) members must meet all standards of performance and behavior in order not to threaten group survival” (Presidential Report 1993 25) The commission found that any of these factors of cohesion could be directly threatened by the integration of women, specifically by women’s physical shortcomings, lack of privacy/forced intimacy, pregnancy, sexual misconduct and the clash of the traditional western values, in which men feel inclined to protect women. Once more the higher possibility of capture played a role in the commission’s research. It has been concluded that most of our potential enemies do not follow the Geneva conventions in regard to POW’s. The commission heard testimony from Department of Defense officials and former POW’s who spoke of the mistreatment of women having negative effects on male POW’s. The commission unanimously advised against the inclusion of women in ground combat units (Presidential Report 1993 27).
Though there are many logical cases to make against women in combat, women have been fighting in combat throughout history. One of history’s most famous female warriors is Joan of Arc. Joan of Arc began her military career in the year of 1428 at the age of 16. It is said that she had a vision from the saints of God that told her to help the King of France by ending the English siege of Orleans. The voices even instructed her on how to do it. In about a year she had raised an army of 4000 strong and she marched them to Orleans. After a few months of fighting the English were forced to withdraw and Joan of Arc was a hero. French Knight Thibaud d’Armagnac said this about her “Apart from the matter of war, she was simple and ignorant, but in the conduct and disposition of armies, in their drawing up and battle order and the raising of soldiers morale, she behaved as if she had been the shrewdest captain in the world and had all her life been learning of war” (De Pauw 1998 96). A more modern example of females taking command in combat can be shown in Africa in the year 1987. A woman named Alice Lakwena raised an army of pheasants called the Holy Spirit Movement to challenge the Ugandan National Resistance Army. Her force was armed mostly with lucky charms and mystic weapons, versus the small arms and artillery of the National Resistance Army. Despite their lack of real weapons the Spirit Movement tied down the Ugandan Army and threatened the Owen Falls bridge, Uganda’s main link to the outside world (De Pauw 1998 290).
There are countless stories of women performing admirably in combat. Stories showing proof of women’s shortcomings in combat are few and far between, so I had to refer to actual soldiers of the present day. My brother was a soldier in 1-8 Cavalry, a mixed unit of infantry, armor, and engineers with their own logistics attached. They were deployed to Foreword Operations Base Rustamiyah. One summer day the base received incoming mortar fire. Mortar fire was common and inaccurate, but on this day it scored a direct hit on a Cavalry soldier. He was described as “all f**ked up”. The first medics to arrive on scene were a pair of female medics from a detachment of the Division headquarters. The two female soldiers were unable to cope with the high stress situation of the dying, gored up man before them and they “lost it”. The two women were not able to perform the task of first aid and the wounded man was not treated until two male medics arrived.
As a soldier in 3-8 Cavalry I was witness to a fine example of women negatively affecting unit cohesion. My platoon was tasked to search a large farm for weapons caches. In order to increases our effectiveness at this task a dog handler was attached to our platoon for the mission. This dog handler happened to be a female from the navy. The mission was pretty standard, and we left our base just like any other mission. On the trip to the target location our platoon sergeant talked over the radio instructing our platoon on some upcoming tasks. In his instructions he used a common vernacular term. This term was found to be offensive by the female dog handler. She asked the ranking officer in her vehicle who had said the word, and the officer refused to tell her out of loyalty to his platoon sergeant. Unable to determine the source of the word in question the female filed a sexual harassment suit against the entire platoon.
As a veteran of combat I had strong and relatively educated opinion of the matter of females in combat long before I had to write this paper. I didn’t like it. Women are not as strong as men. They create what we call a double standard. Standards are very important to all combat soldiers. All soldiers in combat units are subject to sever scrutiny if they are unable to maintain standards. The most scrutinized standards in a combat platoon are physical fitness standards. Soldiers unable to pass the physical fitness test become second class citizens in the closely knit society that is a line company. To add women to this system would say to soldiers, “you are allowed to be subpar”. This creates strong feeling of resentment, both from soldiers who maintained the high standards, and from soldiers who did not pass the standards but are not subject to the exclusion of the double standard. The importance placed on physical standards by soldiers in combat stems from their will to survive. No soldier wants a subpar performer next to them in a foxhole in the heat of combat, be it a man or a woman.
There is also the matter of female integration affecting the bonding of brothers in arms. Men act differently when they are around men than they do with women. Men, in the presence of men, act like men. Men with other men, but with women present are forced to adhere to certain social standards, and when they don’t, women can get uncomfortable or offended. When I was deployed I was on a base of roughly 1000 soldiers. About six were women. We would go weeks without seeing them. At first the concept of even seeing a woman was exciting, but as the year progressed, we wished we could do without seeing them entirely. It was like seeing water in desert after you’ve been stranded for days, except you knew you could never get to it. So we opted not to see the water at all. There was also the threat that they would force us to change our well emplaced social standards. We had been killing and dying for months with no women around. That has a certain affect on a man’s demeanor, and we need it to survive, to cope mentally. The introduction of women into the psychological world we had made for ourselves was an intrusion that was not wanted. Those were my two main grievances, women could not maintain combat standards and they screwed up our male killing machine mojo.
Currently, women within the United States armed services are allowed in naval and air combat. All the services work together, and as a soldiers who has worked with the air force and navy, I have never seen the inclusion of women as a negative factor to their productivity. Women are there and it seems to be working, so I have no qualms. But what of women ground combat?
One would assume I would be totally against the inclusion of women into ground combat units, but I have a compromise. I say that if women want to prove their ability to engage the enemy in the close quarters of ground combat, let them have it, in their own segregated regiment. There will be minimal loss of unit cohesion and no double standards. It would give them a chance to fight without degrading any all male combat units. Women are smart, given time maybe they can make up for their shortcomings in strength with their other combat skills. If they perform well, men might begin to think that women can fight in combat effectively and be willing to fight side by side with them. It has to be an incremental change, one step at a time, so that men and society can slowly dissolve their previous conceptions of traditional female roles as caretakers and men as the protectors.
Nicholas Yund
POL-103
Dr. Kanjula
Women in Combat
Throughout history women have been involved in warfare. From biblical times to the current War on Terrorism, women have done everything from spying to fighting guerrilla warfare. But what should the role of women in the U.S. military be? Should they be tasked only to support roles? Should they be allowed to engage in direct combat operations? What kind of combat operations? Modern warfare finds combat on the land, on the sea, and in the air. Which, if not all, are suitable for women warriors? It is my belief that women be allowed on air combat missions, combat naval vessels, and have their own segregated ground combat units.
Following the Persian Gulf War a commission was tasked by the President of the United States to answer these very questions. Their report took eight months to complete and gave a comprehensive overview of the roles in which women should partake and why. The first role they explored was women in the U.S. Air force. According to the commission’s research women are physically and mentally capable of flying combat aircraft at the same level of that as men; however concerns were raised over women affecting unit cohesion. A survey amongst military pilots in the Navy, Marines, and Air Force found that 69% of pilots were against allowing women to serve in combat squadrons (Presidential Report 1993 29). Another concern raised was the increased odds of capture for combat pilots. Evidence suggest that male POW’s are inclined to protect women POW’s and that women receive harsher treatment form the enemy (Presidential Report 1993 28).
Women have been serving on naval vessels since the 1970’s. All these ships were tenders and service vessels not assigned to combat duty. In 1987 women began to serve onboard Combat Logistics Force ships. These are ships that supply combat ships, and in 1991 they began to serve on training vessels. It has been found that the inclusion of women on all these vessels had no negative effects on readiness or performance and it has been concluded that there is little difference in the manual labor performed on combat and non combat naval vessels. Both types of ships require a plethora of physical tasks. Although men generally perform better at physical task, the importance of physical fitness on ships continues to be an issue of debate. Another factor in female integration on combat vessels is the lack of privacy and few amenities. Space for living quarters on all ships is at a minimum, but on combat ships the little available space is designed for men, and modifications would be required to house women. Cost of the modifications, depending on the ship, could cost millions of dollars. This makes ship modifications for women an unpopular idea for many (Presidential Report 1993 31-32). The commission felt it important to consider the American public’s attitude towards women serving on combat vessels. In a survey, 83% said they favored women being assigned to combat vessels. Of those who had at one time served in the military 72% said women should be assigned to combat vessels (Presidential Report 1993 32).
Of all the forms of combat, the commission’s report on ground combat was the most extensive. Ground combat units include infantry, armor, artillery, and combat engineers, and all include the inherent dangers associated with close quarter’s combat, those risks being capture, injury, and death. Despite the technological advances of warfare, the physical demands of ground troops have not decreased. Soldiers often must survive with little to no amenities and in the harshest of climates. Physical tasks include digging, heavy lifting and hand to hand fighting. The physical differences between women and men were obvious to the commission. Women are smaller in terms of height and weight, and have less muscle mass than men. These factors place women at a disadvantage when performing the tasks associated with ground combat units (Presidential Report 1993 24-25). The most significant deciding factor for the commission was the effects of women on unit cohesion. Cohesion was defined by the commission as follows: “ …the relationship that develops in a unit or group where: (1) members share common values and experiences; (2) individuals in the group conform to group norms and behavior in order to ensure group survival or goals; (3) members lose their personal identity in favor of a group identity; (4) members focus on group activities and goals; (5) members become totally dependent on each other for the completion of the mission or survival; and (6) members must meet all standards of performance and behavior in order not to threaten group survival” (Presidential Report 1993 25) The commission found that any of these factors of cohesion could be directly threatened by the integration of women, specifically by women’s physical shortcomings, lack of privacy/forced intimacy, pregnancy, sexual misconduct and the clash of the traditional western values, in which men feel inclined to protect women. Once more the higher possibility of capture played a role in the commission’s research. It has been concluded that most of our potential enemies do not follow the Geneva conventions in regard to POW’s. The commission heard testimony from Department of Defense officials and former POW’s who spoke of the mistreatment of women having negative effects on male POW’s. The commission unanimously advised against the inclusion of women in ground combat units (Presidential Report 1993 27).
Though there are many logical cases to make against women in combat, women have been fighting in combat throughout history. One of history’s most famous female warriors is Joan of Arc. Joan of Arc began her military career in the year of 1428 at the age of 16. It is said that she had a vision from the saints of God that told her to help the King of France by ending the English siege of Orleans. The voices even instructed her on how to do it. In about a year she had raised an army of 4000 strong and she marched them to Orleans. After a few months of fighting the English were forced to withdraw and Joan of Arc was a hero. French Knight Thibaud d’Armagnac said this about her “Apart from the matter of war, she was simple and ignorant, but in the conduct and disposition of armies, in their drawing up and battle order and the raising of soldiers morale, she behaved as if she had been the shrewdest captain in the world and had all her life been learning of war” (De Pauw 1998 96). A more modern example of females taking command in combat can be shown in Africa in the year 1987. A woman named Alice Lakwena raised an army of pheasants called the Holy Spirit Movement to challenge the Ugandan National Resistance Army. Her force was armed mostly with lucky charms and mystic weapons, versus the small arms and artillery of the National Resistance Army. Despite their lack of real weapons the Spirit Movement tied down the Ugandan Army and threatened the Owen Falls bridge, Uganda’s main link to the outside world (De Pauw 1998 290).
There are countless stories of women performing admirably in combat. Stories showing proof of women’s shortcomings in combat are few and far between, so I had to refer to actual soldiers of the present day. My brother was a soldier in 1-8 Cavalry, a mixed unit of infantry, armor, and engineers with their own logistics attached. They were deployed to Foreword Operations Base Rustamiyah. One summer day the base received incoming mortar fire. Mortar fire was common and inaccurate, but on this day it scored a direct hit on a Cavalry soldier. He was described as “all f**ked up”. The first medics to arrive on scene were a pair of female medics from a detachment of the Division headquarters. The two female soldiers were unable to cope with the high stress situation of the dying, gored up man before them and they “lost it”. The two women were not able to perform the task of first aid and the wounded man was not treated until two male medics arrived.
As a soldier in 3-8 Cavalry I was witness to a fine example of women negatively affecting unit cohesion. My platoon was tasked to search a large farm for weapons caches. In order to increases our effectiveness at this task a dog handler was attached to our platoon for the mission. This dog handler happened to be a female from the navy. The mission was pretty standard, and we left our base just like any other mission. On the trip to the target location our platoon sergeant talked over the radio instructing our platoon on some upcoming tasks. In his instructions he used a common vernacular term. This term was found to be offensive by the female dog handler. She asked the ranking officer in her vehicle who had said the word, and the officer refused to tell her out of loyalty to his platoon sergeant. Unable to determine the source of the word in question the female filed a sexual harassment suit against the entire platoon.
As a veteran of combat I had strong and relatively educated opinion of the matter of females in combat long before I had to write this paper. I didn’t like it. Women are not as strong as men. They create what we call a double standard. Standards are very important to all combat soldiers. All soldiers in combat units are subject to sever scrutiny if they are unable to maintain standards. The most scrutinized standards in a combat platoon are physical fitness standards. Soldiers unable to pass the physical fitness test become second class citizens in the closely knit society that is a line company. To add women to this system would say to soldiers, “you are allowed to be subpar”. This creates strong feeling of resentment, both from soldiers who maintained the high standards, and from soldiers who did not pass the standards but are not subject to the exclusion of the double standard. The importance placed on physical standards by soldiers in combat stems from their will to survive. No soldier wants a subpar performer next to them in a foxhole in the heat of combat, be it a man or a woman.
There is also the matter of female integration affecting the bonding of brothers in arms. Men act differently when they are around men than they do with women. Men, in the presence of men, act like men. Men with other men, but with women present are forced to adhere to certain social standards, and when they don’t, women can get uncomfortable or offended. When I was deployed I was on a base of roughly 1000 soldiers. About six were women. We would go weeks without seeing them. At first the concept of even seeing a woman was exciting, but as the year progressed, we wished we could do without seeing them entirely. It was like seeing water in desert after you’ve been stranded for days, except you knew you could never get to it. So we opted not to see the water at all. There was also the threat that they would force us to change our well emplaced social standards. We had been killing and dying for months with no women around. That has a certain affect on a man’s demeanor, and we need it to survive, to cope mentally. The introduction of women into the psychological world we had made for ourselves was an intrusion that was not wanted. Those were my two main grievances, women could not maintain combat standards and they screwed up our male killing machine mojo.
Currently, women within the United States armed services are allowed in naval and air combat. All the services work together, and as a soldiers who has worked with the air force and navy, I have never seen the inclusion of women as a negative factor to their productivity. Women are there and it seems to be working, so I have no qualms. But what of women ground combat?
One would assume I would be totally against the inclusion of women into ground combat units, but I have a compromise. I say that if women want to prove their ability to engage the enemy in the close quarters of ground combat, let them have it, in their own segregated regiment. There will be minimal loss of unit cohesion and no double standards. It would give them a chance to fight without degrading any all male combat units. Women are smart, given time maybe they can make up for their shortcomings in strength with their other combat skills. If they perform well, men might begin to think that women can fight in combat effectively and be willing to fight side by side with them. It has to be an incremental change, one step at a time, so that men and society can slowly dissolve their previous conceptions of traditional female roles as caretakers and men as the protectors.
The Redesign Generation
We've had these little Religious Ideas about what a woman should be for over 2000 years in those law books. So yes, it'll take years for science, rationale, and logic to overcome that in society.
.png)
