Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[AmericanPride]

All else aside, I personally don't know how anyone who has led teenaged soldiers/Marines/sailors/airmen from this sex-saturated generation, or even someone who has lived in a college dorm in the last couple decades, could think women in combat arms units is a good idea.

This is a problem of normative structures, not of the objective material impact of women participating in combat. The U.S. is introducing by piecemeal a foreign concept into a closed society. This is like dipping your hand into the cold pool water and waiting and hoping that the rest of your body will warm up to it. But the normative structures are changing - rapidly - not least because of the changing role of the military in U.S. society which has been brought to the forefront of our attention by war.

The recent changes in the military retirement system and other proposed personnel policies reflect a military entering into a new stage of modern professional and work ethic. This is a consequence of a host factors, among which is the underlying cultural and intellectual reliance on a 'volunteer force'. This is more about labor economics than culture because the culture will change as the economics change. The U.S. labor market is extremely competitive and the state no longer has the social capital or the political will to compel military service. Thus by consequence of economic restraints, the military needs more women to enter into service.

This is also about expectations of combat performance as well as attrition. The U.S. has the world's third largest population and could easily field a mass army capable of 'victory' in any conventional war. In this context, women are not necessary and so the luxury of domestic cultural norms regulating female roles can be maintained. However, we do not want mass casualties. We do not want to fight a large conventional war. We want a 'smart', technological, flexible military. This is reflected in our recruiting standards which make between a quarter and a third of applicants ineligible. These are aspects of the American military mind that dictate the economic necessity of women in combat.

There is also an underlying question tugging at all of this and that is: what wins wars? Is it the heroism and skill of the individual soldier and do women by their nature lack something necessary for victory on the battlefield? That sounds very romantic and certainly protects the pride of manhood. Or is it by cold calculation of a combination of technological prowess, material wealth, and the massing of combat power on a single target? I would venture to guess that if we were to replace all the men in the military with women, keeping all else equal, our military outcomes would be the same.

EDIT: One other thought. There was a study awhile ago (I'll try to find it if I can) that examined the differences in men and female athletes and found that a substantial difference in their abilities can be linked to the segregated upbringing of the sexes. Girls are simply not held to the same expectations of boys when it comes to athletics and this is reflected by the amount of time, resources, etc dedicated to their training and development as they grow up. This results in differentiated outcomes. The same is true for military service - though that is changing some. Unless there is a fundamental difference in the female temperament or nature, women and men being held to the same standards (this is different than saying women should be held to men's standards) should not affect anything.