First of all let me say that as an
Officer in the United States Army I have sworn an oath to defend the
Constitution of the United States of America and to follow the orders of the
President of the United States and the Officers appointed over me. I take this
oath seriously, as the overwhelming majority of military Officers do. Policy is
not dictated by military Officers, but rather by our political leaders. This is
a great strength of our republic. The military will execute whatever mission is
directed by our Commander in Chief, within the context of the Constitution, and
this current issue of integrating women into combat arms is no different.
With that
disclaimer, I think it is useful, from time to time in the course of public
debates over policy issues, for those closest to the heart of the matter to
offer their own observations and insights for all their fellow citizens to
judge. The argument I am preparing to layout should be taken as such: an
opinion of someone with some intimate, albeit subjective, knowledge concerning
the issues at hand. I do not intend to offend, but rather to seek to enhance
our common understanding in a respectful and open way.
To start,
let’s clarify the issue at hand. Until the policy change last week, the status
quo in the military had been established by a 1994 law that banned women from
serving in “combat arms” positions, or in support positions that were attached
to combat arms units below the Brigade level. The policy was effectively
modified, though not officially changed, by the creation of the Brigade Combat
Team (BCT) force structure, which attached Forward Support Companies–and female
soldiers with them–directly to Infantry and Armor and Field Artillery
Battalions.
The actual situation is that
support personnel attached directly to combat arms companies are only males,
but support at higher echelons is mixed. Through the course of the war, there
have been some exceptions made, most notably to facilitate the creation of
female engagement teams, which have operated all the way down at the platoon
level with Infantry and even special operations units. The barrier to women
entering combat arms units, however, has remained, which means that large
numbers of our infantry soldiers spend entire deployments, or even careers, largely
insulated from female soldiers.
Despite this barrier to entry into
combat arms, many female soldiers have found themselves in combat over the past
decade. How is that, exactly? That women are at once not permitted to serve in
combat arms, but are at the same time engaging in combat? The nature of 21st
century combat and the predominately “low intensity” conflicts we have been
engaged in so far distort the traditional Western concept of front and rear or
area of operations and area of support.
Female soldiers serving as cooks on
forward operating bases or combat outposts have been engaged by mortar or
rocket fire. Female soldiers serving as military intelligence specialists have
been ambushed in transit from one location to another. Females serving in logistics
positions have found themselves in engaged by enemy forces regularly. And many
of these women have reacted with great valor and completed their mission in the
face of enemy fire.
These women have been awarded, in
the Army’s case, the Combat Action Badge and other awards of valor and
distinction as merited.[i]
They have received the exact same
hazardous duty incentive and hostile fire incentive pay as the male soldiers
serving in infantry units. The role of women on the current battlefield has
been recognized and appreciated, by the Department of Defense, by their male
counterparts, and by our society as a whole. The barrier to combat arms,
despite all this, has remained. Why would that be the case? If female soldiers
have already proven themselves a hundred times over capable of doing the exact
same job as the infantrymen, then why is this even a discussion? The confusion
here stems from a clouded perception of exactly what it is we in the military
have been doing over the past decade.
Day to day operations in
Afghanistan, or Iraq from 2003 through 2011, are extremely diverse. There are
thousands of soldiers doing hundreds of different jobs to bring the intent of
the theater commanders to life in a bafflingly large area of operations. And
while many, though nowhere near all, of these soldiers, marines, sailors, and
airmen see some sort of combat, it has continued to be the sole realm of the
combat arms units and personnel to conduct combat operations. It is their job
to boldly fill whatever breach needs the attention of the country’s roughest,
most violent men. They must suffer the worst privations day in and day out;
they are the ones who the Commander in Chief sends outside the wire with the explicit purpose of finding and
destroying the enemy’s combat forces. The men of our combat arms stand
ready to “move further, faster and fight harder” than any other soldier.[ii]
Deliberate combat operations are
often quite different from inadvertent combat engagements with enemy forces. A
20-minute firefight is an extremely draining event, both emotionally and
physically. I have tremendous respect for the women I have known in the
military who have proven themselves true soldiers by enduring such firefights
and continuing to accomplish the mission. But these firefights only make up a
small portion of actual combat operations. Imagine the four hours of
infiltration prior to that first firefight, under terrible combat weights, only
to flow into another firefight, then pursuit, then another firefight, then into
some sort of static position outside of the wire for a few hours right into
another day of the same. Women in the
military, on the whole, have not experienced this, or even trained for this
sort of a mission.
The infantry are often called, by
others, and even more often, lovingly by each other, grunts. War is organized
violence for the purpose of some political end. It is much easier to sanitize
it in theory than in practice. Grunts are required in war, because after all
the intelligence and the logistics and the cultural and political leveraging,
there is still some armed group of determined opposition, otherwise it wouldn’t
be war. Raw aggression and unflinching violence are the tools required. These
are the tools of the grunt, built over months and years and generations,
through physical and mental preparation. This culture of the infantry has been
an entirely masculine domain.
I have been happy to be a part of
this tradition. I have shared much with my brothers in arms. And so I must
apologize to those brothers who will perceive my following argument as a
betrayal. All I can say is that I have written here what I felt was required to
preserve this great and necessary tradition.
I
support not only lifting the Combat Arms Exclusion policy, but also the
immediate integration of all qualified female soldiers into combat arms
positions.
The policy question of integrating
women into infantry or other combat arms units is immense. There are a myriad
of concerns and issues; ranging from cultural norms of partner forces to
questions of the impact of pregnancies on unit readiness. There are American
cultural values to consider, as well as issues of sexual harassment and gender
ignorance. Unit cohesion, command policies, questions of hygiene and living
quarters. The list goes on and on. In my mind, however, these are mostly the
sorts of things that will simply need to be worked through honestly, and
painfully at times, by us in the military. The faithful servants of the
republic, the Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers, will find a way, as we
always have, to accomplish the mission (or perhaps we will die trying). For me, there is only one question which is
of true importance: should women be given the opportunity to serve in the ranks
of our country’s combat arms forces?
My answer to that question is yes.
I say yes, women should be given the opportunity to serve in the infantry, not
because I believe it is their right, or because I think our combat arms units
need to be more open or more accommodating. To serve one’s nation in combat is
by no means a right, as evidenced by all manner of exclusions of individuals
from the military. Nor should our combat arms units, or our military as a whole
for that matter, be more open, or accommodating. We should be more disciplined
in these uncertain times. We should be more demanding of those citizens who
seek the privilege to serve their country.
I say yes to women in the infantry because I was convinced by the
argument of Major Mary Jennings Hegar.
In an op-ed piece published on the
website of the ACLU, Major Hegar recounts her own personal experience as a
MEDEVAC pilot in Afghanistan. While I was not swayed by her anecdote of
personal heroism, however impressive it is, I was struck by the force of her
final conclusion. She writes “putting the right person in the right job has
very little to do with one’s gender, race, religion, or other demographic
descriptor.” Rather Major Hegar declares, “it has everything to do with one’s
heart, character, ability, determination and dedication.” Major Hegar’s
affirmation of our values as a meritocracy is moving. And where in American
society has this been truer than in the military? To be sure we have our own
politics and forms of nepotism; I am not naïve. But this sort of meritocratic
vision is our ideal. It is the goal we must always strive to accomplish.[iii]
I therefore believe the barrier to
combat arms should be completely lifted. But we must not, in the same motion,
raise also a stepping stool for women into the infantry. As Major Hegar so
eloquently put it, putting someone in the right place should have “everything
to do with one’s heart, character, ability, determination, and dedication”.
Nowhere is that more necessary than in the infantry, where people’s lives and
the outcome of the mission will depend on the ability and determination of the
soldiers and leaders we send outside the wire. The biological and physical
differences between men and women will not matter at the moment of decision on
the battlefield and they should not hold sway in the selection of our combat
arms soldiers.
I am no biologist and I have
already admitted that my arguments here are largely, if not entirely,
subjective. But there are biological differences between men and women, which
have an impact on our physical abilities. All branches of the military
currently account for these physical differences by imposing different physical
fitness standards on men and women. Well different is one way to say it. The
other way would be clearer: all branches of the military currently hold women
to a lower standard of physical fitness than is expected of their male
counterparts. The inequality in standards is not such an important issue, when
we are evaluating the competence of a helicopter mechanic, who spends 99% of
their time in a bay, in the rear of the formation. But for an infantryman,
charged with the task of maneuvering on the enemy, physical fitness is an issue
of severe consequence. Of course there are women who would be capable of
passing the male standards for physical fitness.
I have met many women in my life
who could outrun me. I have met even more who could outpace me in water or on a
bike. There are thousands of women who would be considered more athletic than
me. I have met fewer who could keep pace in push ups or pull ups, though I have
met them. But I have never met a woman who could outruck me. Rucking is the
most essential infantry exercise. You can be a world-class weight lifter, an
Olympic swimmer, but if you don’t have the heart and the shoulders and the back
to ruck, heavy and far, then you are a worthless infantryman.
Rucking, for any civilians reading
this, is marching with a rucksack, which looks a lot like a hikers pack with an
exterior frame. It is the best test of an infantryman’s metal because it tests
the carrying of heavy weight, distributed across the body, for long distances
and periods of time. In combat, even on the shortest patrols, the average load
for any Infantryman probably sits somewhere around 40 pounds. For longer
patrols, it is easy to find oneself loaded out with 150 pounds of equipment,
ammunition, food, and water. Climbing up a fucking mountain in Afghanistan, all
night long, with 150 pounds on your back. There are probably a number of women
who can reach deep and find the kind of steel that is required for the task,
but the number will be far lower than most advocates of the policy of
integrating women into combat arms would expect.
The rugged physical and mental
standards of the infantry cannot be compromised. If woman serve in combat
roles, they need to rise to the same standards and earn their own right to wear
the crossed rifles for themselves. If equality is the order of the day, if the
physical differences between men and women are to be ignored, if tradition is
to be overlooked, then I say let us step all the way through the breach. I have
never been a fan of half steps anyway. Women attending Infantry One Station
Unit Training, or Ranger School, or Basic Underwater Demolition School, or any
other combat oriented course, should meet the same exact physical standards.
They should eat the same food, carry the same load, shit in the same sad hole,
sleep in the same hooch and wear the same uniform. Their hair should be shaved
like all the rest. The integration should be so complete that, to the outside
observer, the women who serve in our combat arms should be nearly
indistinguishable from their male counterparts.
Only then will the bond of
brotherhood be forged. Only then will the women in combat arms serve as a
source of pride and strength, rather than some half measured play towards
political correctness. I would serve with immense pleasure with any woman who
rucked her way through woods and mountain and swamp. She would be my sister in
arms. And those women are out there. I do not doubt it. But we will never know
them if we simply allow women to join the Infantry will long hair and separate
bathrooms and special considerations and their own physical fitness scale.
I’ll end by saying that I think a
lot of the concerns and issues enumerated here can be found in this NPR piece
on the subject: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=170471660&m=170494934.
It is the right of the citizenry to dictate policy to the military. It is part
of what makes ours a great union. But I beg those citizens out there reading
this, to please consider what I have shared. I have given this all some thought
and I want only the best for our country and this Army.
One last link:
This is the kind of woman I would
serve with and smile. I hope some of you can appreciate the richness of this
primary document
