Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[120mm]

I'm particularly fond of Dr. Mary Habeck, and Dr. Jacqueline K. (I forget her name) who wrote the "Long War" paper seems to have some firm opinions on military strategy, but other than that, I don't know of many.

[120mm]

Davis. That's the name of Dr. Jacqueline K.

I beg to differ that women are natural compromisers. I think if women ruled the world, the first conflict post-nuclear age would've resulted in a general nuclear exchange. IMO, women do not have the natural "break-points" in a disagreement that men do. They are also completely and utterly incapable of enduring honest feedback in social terms.

[BPowell]

I honestly did not go searching for this thread--it just happened to be at the top of the list!

As a female officer in the Air Force, I will be the first to admit that my experiences are miles away from an enlisted female in the Army, so I won't even add to that debate. What I did want to comment on is the idea of women as strategic (and I think "military" is implied) thinkers.

All cliches aside, I believe part of the reason that there are so few women who are known as strategic thinkers has more to do with time than anything else. It's only been, what, about 40 years that women have even started to be accepted in military ranks? And as all of you well know, it takes time, experience,and education to grow strategic thinkers.

Some may argue that only those who experience direct combat action qualify to bill themselves as strategic thinkers; however, I think with a little thought we can all identify great writers/historians who fall closer to the category of armchair quarterbacks.

Those are just my thoughts--I'm certainly glad I found this web page! Just as a side note, I found the site while preparing for the Strategic Art lesson I have to teach next week at the staff college where I'm an instructor.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

r/Bridget

[120mm]

Thanks for "stopping in". We hope you will read through the site more thoroughly and make as many posts as you like.... We are also trying to get our minds around "how the Air Force can be more involved" in COIN, in a meaningful fashion.

[marct]

Hi Bridget,

Welcome to the SWC!

All cliches aside, I believe part of the reason that there are so few women who are known as strategic thinkers has more to do with time than anything else. It's only been, what, about 40 years that women have even started to be accepted in military ranks? And as all of you well know, it takes time, experience,and education to grow strategic thinkers.

I suspect that that is certainly a part of it. I keep thinking about Elizabeth I who had a pretty good Grand Strategic vision, and certainly enough time has passed in the corporate world to see a number of women reaching CEO status and being very good strategic thinkers. I know that's not "military", but it is an indicator against the genetic difference argument which is at the root of a lot of the "women can't do X" arguments.

Those are just my thoughts--I'm certainly glad I found this web page! Just as a side note, I found the site while preparing for the Strategic Art lesson I have to teach next week at the staff college where I'm an instructor.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "Strategic Art"? I'm an Anthropologist, not in the military, and trying to parse that phrase is giving me some very weird visions (mass produced copies of the Mona Lisa dropping on Taliban bunkers, etc. ).

Marc

[BPowell]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "Strategic Art"? I'm an Anthropologist, not in the military, and trying to parse that phrase is giving me some very weird visions (mass produced copies of the Mona Lisa dropping on Taliban bunkers, etc. ).

Marc,

that's a very good question, and I think highlights one of the issues confronting the military--we have a broad vocabulary that means almost nothing to other people. We sometimes confuse ourselves, as well! What I'm referring to is in conjunction with the three levels of war (strategic, operational, and tactical). For the purposes of the course I teach, strategic art refers to the art of strategy--looking at not only key strategic thinkers but at key documents such as the National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and the National Defense Strategy. The idea behind it relates to the time-honored argument between the art of war vs. the science of war; we try to get our students thinking at the higher levels (e.g. the boring stuff--tactical is fun because you get to blow stuff up!)

How's that?

Bridget

[marct]

that's a very good question, and I think highlights one of the issues confronting the military--we have a broad vocabulary that means almost nothing to other people. We sometimes confuse ourselves, as well!

LOL. It happens inside every profession, we do exactly the same thing to the never ending complaints of our students .

What I'm referring to is in conjunction with the three levels of war (strategic, operational, and tactical). For the purposes of the course I teach, strategic art refers to the art of strategy--looking at not only key strategic thinkers but at key documents such as the National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and the National Defense Strategy.

Okay, that's clear. Do you also include other elements such as trade patterns, demographic shifts, financial systems, etc.?

The idea behind it relates to the time-honored argument between the art of war vs. the science of war; we try to get our students thinking at the higher levels (e.g. the boring stuff--tactical is fun because you get to blow stuff up!)

So a Zen paradox approach? Clausewitz vs. Musashi and William the Silent vs. Sun Tzu? That could be a lot of fun. Are you using David Kilcullen's Countering Global Insurgency piece? He does a really nice job of setting the levels up as fractally decomposable. I'm assigning it as a text for my next class in theory and methodology.

How's that?

Excellent answer .

Marc

[goesh]

I think we can safely rule out Bodicus and Hillary as strategic military thinkers. That's a start on the short list anyway. Regarding the gist of the Originator's post, my hunch is that sexual harassment and assault are no more prevalent in the military than they are in the civilian sector. At least the Military doesn't have a need for domestic violence shelters. I would propose that said domestic violence shelters in the civilian sector are filled to capacity with waiting lists. Any CO can confine a man to Post on-the-spot and throw his a** in the brig if that man so much as sets foot off post if DV issues are at play. I would take issue with the Originator's assertion that, "..the NYT is the lead ship in the US media convoy. It sets the agenda..." The Gray Lady has some gaping credibility wounds that are far from healed.

[Bill Moore]

You can't compare sexual harassment and intimidation statistics between the civilian and military worlds. Obviously they are serious in both environments, but the effect in the military is much greater.

I also think you underestimate the scale of the problem, but I'll leave it at that, because it is basically a social norm problem that we're faced with it, and a power point class on sexual harassment isn't going to create a paradigm shift in how people treat one another; however, as you eluded to the fear of punishment does create behavior change, and that is the advantage the military has. It will take time to change social norms, and we also want to make sure that we want to change them. There is a difference between equal opportunity and equal in ability across the spectrum. While the only differences I can readily identify that most will agree with is the physical differences. A man is "generally" stronger than a woman, which makes women vulnerable to abuse. I think there are other differences, not so much genetic as Marc stated, but cultural, based on the circles we grew up in (male activities versus female activities). You see a merging of the two gradually, with more and more female sports teams, etc., but it will take a long time to make a significant change.

While I was somewhat joking in a previous post, having sat in on a few planning sessions for different crisises, I have noted that the female officers frequently had a different perspective of the problem, which most of us found useful. I don't think it is genetic, but social, but none the less useful.

120mm, a nuclear war? O.K., I agree, my wife doesn't read this, but when she gets mad, I'm glad she doesn't have access to the little red button (lol).

BPowell welcome, look forward to your insights. I don't agree with your comment on time though, that is strictly an American issue. Women have been involved in conflicts for hundreds of years, and I guess if I looked hard enough perhaps I could find some strategic approaches implemented by women if I look at some of the queens of old Europe? I do concur that the ability to develop strategy has nothing to do with time in combat.

[Maggie]

I think there are other differences, not so much genetic as Marc stated, but cultural, based on the circles we grew up in (male activities versus female activities). You see a merging of the two gradually, with more and more female sports teams, etc., but it will take a long time to make a significant change.

It does take time, and it's only been 50-60 years since the first changes such as access to univerities and careers really opened up, not to mention access to power such as elected offices and boardrooms (yes, there were a few women before that but they were exceptions rather than indication of a norm). Even sports. When I was in high school that school fielded no women's sport teams and in fact girls were allowed only one year of gym, our faciliies were mostly dedicated to the boys and their teams. I've noticed that the few female strategists offered as examples have been queens--who had access to the power to use that talent. How many women in the past had that power? Cultural is right--and those are often based on gut reactions of 'what's fitting' which doesn't change at the stroke of a pen.

While I was somewhat joking in a previous post, having sat in on a few planning sessions for different crisises, I have noted that the female officers frequently had a different perspective of the problem, which most of us found useful. I don't think it is genetic, but social, but none the less useful.

It may or may not be genetic, there do seem to be some differences if one looks at broad generalities between the sexes, it certainly can be cultural. However, different does not automatically mean there needs to be a value judgement applied to either perspective. As you found, different perspectives are useful no matter where they come from.

Women have been involved in conflicts for hundreds of years, and I guess if I looked hard enough perhaps I could find some strategic approaches implemented by women if I look at some of the queens of old Europe? I do concur that the ability to develop strategy has nothing to do with time in combat.

I don't think time or nationality is the factor here, it's who gets the recognition from history and why. You mention queens of Europe here--it's certainly true that women have always been involved in conflicts but it's the women with acess to power and recorded by history that we know. The lack of female mention could then reasonably be considered simply a reflection of the cultural norms of the time and not taken as evidence that there were none.

[Lilabeth]

Hasn't anyone on this website heard of COL Heidi V Brown?
She is 100% Army and proud of it.
Might want to check her out!

[Cavguy]

Hasn't anyone on this website heard of COL Heidi V Brown?
She is 100% Army and proud of it.
Might want to check her out!

I googled her.

OK, so she's an ADA COL. A great American. And? Lots of women have achieved lots more. I'm sure they're all 100% army and proud of it to.

Would be nice to see an intro posted on you and some more on why you think her career in particular brings something new to the discussion. As it is, I'm confused. No one here would stipulate that there have not been successful, extremely competent females who have achieved high rank.

[Fuchs]

Here's something funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BuoZGTMykI

The tragic: She made lieutenant later.


Personnel should be selected for the job, it's that simple.
If someone fails or hasn't the qualities anyway - why employ him or her in an unsuitable position?

[Norfolk]

Oooh, that brought back some bad memories of some similar events a long time ago on this side of the pond. Including one of a certain female who sort of freaked out on a range and sprayed live rounds on full auto right over the heads of many of the other soldiers on said range. I was ten or fifteen feet from her... Yeah, individuals like this one, male, female, Cousin It, or whatever, should either be thoroughly sorted out or separated from the service. But made an officer? [Shake head.]

My main worry is what standards are the males held to. Can they cross that assault course macht schnell with rifle and in full webbing, and be fit enough to go straight into a fight? I sure hope the Bundeswehr hasn't found itself caught in the jaws of a top-down, imposed political imperative/policy requirement here. I've seen how that works out.

And BW TV sure wasn't pulling any punches with this one. But it would probably have been better for BW TV not to feature those who should be culled, even if only in jest. Causes those who are capable and competent - male, female, whatever - to be pre-judged by others as being of the sort apparently featured here.

[jmm99]

I googled COL Brown - Now, I know I'm old because that sentence meant something quite different back in the day.

Anyway, the first Google hit was this:

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/firsts5.html

Lots of talent there. Four of six also are African-American. Not statistical proof of anything, but it supports Cavguy's bottom line.

I suspect the 24 other pages in that website have a lot more to offer.

My wife would say "right on - all the way".

[120mm]

Case in point: My former Battalion Commander was an African-American Female, and is the "poster-child" of what is wrong with the status quo with women in the military.

She is a double-minority, and it is my opinion that the only reason she is still in the military, an O-5 and a Battalion Commander, is because of the color of the skin and her plumbing.

She has a long and undistinguished history of failure in each and every leadership position she has held. It's a relatively small world, and I've had the opportunity to speak with several of her former subordinates who verify this. She is actively driving her current command into the ground, and they have consolidated the equivalent of another battalion under her due to reorg for her to destroy.

She is unable to qualify on her personal weapon. Her excuse is that the Army hasn't trained her properly, so she refuses to take efforts to train herself. "It's not my job to train myself, the Army needs to train me on my weapon" is what she has repeated told her subordinates, in public.

She has also repeatedly spoken in public and to her direct subordinates about how she's really not responsible for failures in her Battalion, "it's all on the Brigade Commander" is her response.

She repeatedly exhibits a lack of knowledge about how chain of command works, and is, frankly, a "dud". I have never met a male or caucasian officer who is this bad, who got promoted and had B.C., though some shot for close.

But she gets good OERs and has a decent shot at O-6.

On the other hand, I know several females between the ranks of E-1 and O-6 who have their stuff wired tight. Somebody, somewhere didn't do their duty vis-a-vis the aforementioned B.C.. And I suspect her gender and/or race influenced her continued promotion.