Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[Fabius Maximus]

Note this high profile article, the lead story in the NY Times Sunday Magazine insert. As you know, the NYT is the lead ship in the US media convoy. It sets the agenda for the major newsmagazines and network news, so we can expect to see many more follow-up stories in the next few months. This could be another Tailhook.

The Women's War
New York Times
March 18, 2007
Prints out at 28 pages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/ma...ne&oref=slogin


Here is the article which I beleive ignited this discussion.

The private war of women soldiers
By Helen Benedict
Salon
March 7, 2007

“Many female soldiers say they are sexually assaulted by their male comrades and can't trust the military to protect them. "The knife wasn't for the Iraqis," says one woman. "It was for the guys on my own side."”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...tml?source=rss

[RTK]

Note this high profile article, the lead story in the NY Times Sunday Magazine insert. As you know, the NYT is the lead ship in the US media convoy. It sets the agenda for the major newsmagazines and network news, so we can expect to see many more follow-up stories in the next few months. This could be another Tailhook.

The Women's War
New York Times
March 18, 2007
Prints out at 28 pages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/ma...ne&oref=slogin


Here is the article which I beleive ignited this discussion.

The private war of women soldiers
By Helen Benedict
Salon
March 7, 2007

“Many female soldiers say they are sexually assaulted by their male comrades and can't trust the military to protect them. "The knife wasn't for the Iraqis," says one woman. "It was for the guys on my own side."”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...tml?source=rss

So far off topic, in fact, that it probably needs it's own thread.

[Jedburgh]

So far off topic, in fact, that it probably needs it's own thread.

Agreed. And here it is.

[Bill Moore]

This is definitely an important topic for our nation, because any mishavior in the ranks will have an effect on the nation's will.

I support equal rights and opportunity, but I also accept the fact that women are women and men are men, and the differences are considerable (far beyond mating mechanics). This creates the friction in values, because most of us support it, but then again we know there are differences, so how do you support it in practice, and not just in principle?

Based on observation of reality (not the way we want it to be) I think placing a woman by herself in a squad or platoon of men is simply asking for trouble unless you have outstanding leadership at that level. It may make a good photo opportunity for those inclined to show how well the system works, most of us know there are serious underlying troubles. Will time solve this like it did for racial integration? I education over time will have some positive effect, but it won't erase the male/female attraction aspect and the subsequent eroding effect this will have on good order and discipline in the ranks.

We have or had problems with sexual harrassment in our military academies, which are generally composed of average intelligence with decent moral values (it is a value focused institution), so what do we expect to have in our enlisted ranks when we are now recruiting more category four soldiers and soldiers with criminal records, who obviously have interest in values? Most of us try to live a good life, and feel bad when we make a mistake (our darker nature prevails at certain times), but a criminal simply doesn't care, and if you put him in a war zone where he thinks he can get away with anything because there are limited safety mechanisms in place what do you expect? There has also been an increase on male on male rape, so what does that indicate?

Part of the problem is the historical biological conflict between the sexes, but the other part is that we're slowly lowering the quality of our recruits and we're begining to feel the effect.

Women bring a lot to the fight in select career fields (to include military policing), but it will always be a tough fit with numerous rough edges. I wonder if the European Armies have done a better job at integration than we have, or if they have the same challenges?

[tequila]

Kind of makes me glad I chose infantry.

[Uboat509]

Standard NYT smear piece. "If you are a female in the Army, you will be raped or harassed. The men all want to rape or harass you." Blah, blah blah. Certainly, rape and harassment do happen but to read this article you would think that it is only a matter of time before any woman who dares to join the great big misogynist frat party that is the military is raped and/or harassed. Now, in order to maintain the pretense that this was balanced report the author did throw in this paragraph on page six of the sixteen page article

There were women, it should be noted, who spoke of feeling at ease among the men in their platoons, who said their male peers treated them respectfully. Anecdotally, this seemed most common among reserve and medical units, where the sex ratios tended to be more even. Several women credited their commanders for establishing and enforcing a more egalitarian climate, where sexual remarks were not tolerated.

I worked with females early in my career before a reclassed to combat arms and my current wife serve a little over three years before leaving the Army as a Sergeant (one of the best I have seen in my career by the way). I have seen how it works. This article seems to imply that most often commanders will ignore harassment or even rape. That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. Most commanders I have known are so paranoid about even the possible appearance of impropriety that they will crush anything that even looks wrong. I have seen some downright draconian policies enacted to prevent this sort of thing. I once saw a young soldier get his butt chewed because he used the word "chick" to refer to a female and a female soldier who was neither being talked to or about said she was offended. This is not "tailhook". This is just the NYT trying to stir up trouble again, the same as yesterday and the day before and probably tomorrow as well.

SFC W

[Old Eagle]

It is a small war issue when Al-Jezzera features it on their English language website. I can't imagine ANYONE making sexual advances at Al-J's star witness, Janis Karpinski.

[Jedburgh]

...This article seems to imply that most often commanders will ignore harassment or even rape. That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. Most commanders I have known are so paranoid about even the possible appearance of impropriety that they will crush anything that even looks wrong. I have seen some downright draconian policies enacted to prevent this sort of thing....

Very true. The most outrageous example of this that I have experience of was at a Corps-level MI Bn when a SSG was given a Company Grade Art 15 because he did not intervene when a male SPC was making off-color comments to a female SPC who both were in his PLT. The incident occurred off-duty, in a civilian nightclub, and he was not with them - they were on a "date" together, and he just happened to be sitting at a table across from them at the time. The command simply assumed he could hear what was going on, and asserted that he failed in his responsibility to immediately stop the SPC from making such remarks. The male SPC received a Field Grade.

[davidbfpo]

A 2023 update. An article by a British academic and the title is IMHO is simply wrong, the deployment was not a secret. See: https://theconversation.com/womens-s...nistan-205669?

[Jeremy Carver]

That is going to be a continuing issue we are going to have to deal with since women continue to push the Military to become an equal opportunity employer. Women are petitioning to be allowed to join the Infantry and other combat arms mos's. I do not disagree that women can play a very important role in our ranks. There are plenty of mos's that they perform well at. What must be determined is should we change the rules for the exceptions. I believe strongly in standards and don't believe the standard should ever be compromised. If a female can perform to the standard should she be allowed to join the ranks of the combat mos's? Should matters such as sexual assault be taken into consideration? I have faith in the soldiers, and given the proper leadership it will be able to be accomplished. I do not personally like the idea but I see it becoming inevitable.

[SWJED]

Maximus,

Great question and something I would like to hear thoughts on from Council members. In recent years I’ve heard a whole range of opinions on what target group an IO / influence campaign should focus on. Several OIF operators I talked to were adamant that women (at least in Iraq) should be the number one priority.

Any thoughts?

[BPowell]

Maximus et al--

great thoughts! I've got some random input to several of the posts; no particular order:

Women in combat arms roles: I am a firm believer that the standards in the military should be based on the job; if the job requires accomplishing tasks x, y, and z to a certain level, then EVERYONE regardless of age or gender needs to be able to perform those tasks to that level. It's the next part of the question that gets hairy; if women can accomplish those tasks, should they be permitted to serve in those units? Honestly, I don't know how I feel about that. Some ideas would be voluntary mixed units--that is, identify a group of individuals who ELECT to work in a mixed-gender unit.

Where I struggle, though, is with the fact that most of the men in these kinds of units could probably be classified as alpha males, and the ingrained tendency to protect those weaker could, potentially, be an issue. You'll notice a lot of "coulds" and "mights"--because I don't know. I've never been in combat, so I don't know how a squad mate might react if he has a female in his unit who comes under fire. I do know that women have been successful in standoff combat roles (like fighter pilots, etc.) but that's an entirely different area.

That being said, I think we in the military could learn a great deal from NGOs and IOs--my particular experience is with Christian missionaries, who are tremendously effective in certain sensitive countries because the husband is a teacher and the wife is a nurse or a doctor. And this gets to the point that Maximus made--it's the women who, to a large degree, influence the future. If Afghan and Iraqi women can be influenced to view us in a positive light, they may, in turn, exert that influence (whether overtly or covertly) on their children.

This does not remove the requirement to influence the underlying reasons for discontent; however, as we are all very well aware, perception is often 9/10ths of reality and (this might belong in another area) I don't believe we are waging a tremendously effective information campaign.

I guess my final thought would be that creating a blended security/CA type unit that was either predominantly female or had several female members (all with proper training and education) could be tremendously beneficial. But this leads to another question that I think goes along with this--is there a role for older people? How about a similar effort to recruit a civilian over-50 unit to go over and function as an elder corps?

That last part may be way out in left field. What do you all think?

Regards,

Bridget

[slapout9]

How about a Joan of Allah Brigade? The Palestinians have a female that is on the news alot that represents their views, I can not remember here name but she made a big splash when she appeared. An educated,well spoken female instead of a blood thirsty terrorist.

Not to long ago myself and Bill Moore had a thread about this very subject, it involved the incident where Palestinian women charged some Israelis and they let some prisoners go instead of shooting them. I have always thought that we had nothing to loose by involving the Iraqi women in the fight. I don't know about the culture and maybe there is a valid reason not to do it, but if we can it would be worth a try.

[120mm]

Bridget, good points, all. Oddly enough, I've been a member of the ILARNG Linguist company, and worked with the Homewood CA guys, and the Linguist Company is female-dominated and the CA guys are all male. I could never figure out why that is.

There are other dynamics as well to the male/female combat arms thing. I'm a combat arms guy who is now force-branched into a non-combat MOS. I was an extremely effective leader in a combat arms unit, using a very personal and charismatic style. By the end of my first two commands, we, as a unit, "had a love thang going on." This "band of brothers" dynamic is extremely effective in combat arms, and I had effectively developed the skills to make it happen.

Fast-forward to my third command, a mixed-gender transportation unit. We were scheduled to deploy to Iraq in a few months, so I started initiating the bonding techniques that I had depended on for the first two commands, and "not good" things started to happen. First, I am naturally and comfortably an "alpha", plus I was an authority figure. This combination, combined with the incipient mobilization (I believe) caused the younger females to react in ways that made me extremely uncomfortable.

I discussed this with my XO, who was female, (and working on her Psychology doctorate) who concurred as to the things that made me uneasy and we agreed that I should shut down the "charisma machine" tuit suite. The net result, was that I felt like I was operating blind-folded and fettered.

Dominant males, in positions of authority and especially during stressfull situations have a certain attraction to females under that authority. This can lead to stress to both the leader and the led, as well as situations that are corrosive to good order and discipline.

Luckily, I was hired away from that location in my civilian job, and my XO took those guys to "the box." It was then that I realized what a liability I was to that organization. (And quite possibly to the Army) I've developed an entire leadership tool-box that is not useful in a mixed gender unit.

[tequila]

Returning to the original topic, DoD FY 2006 report on sexual assaults in the military.

[Sarajevo071]

About that report:

Reports of sexual assaults in the military increased by about 24 percent last year and more than twice as many offenders were punished.

There were nearly 3,000 sexual assault reports filed in 2006, compared with almost 2,400 the previous year, a Pentagon report said Wednesday. Action was taken against 780 people, from courts-martial and discharges to other administrative remedies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/...y_sex_assaults

[SWJED]

28 May Washington Times commentary - A New Woman in Combat. Not! By Suzanne Fields.

Jessica Lynch turned out to be a soldier worthy of the uniform, but not, as we were told she was, the poster child for the women in the military. Hers was a great story when it broke. She was Sergeant York and Audie Murphy in skirts (although she mostly wore combat fatigues), spraying fire at the enemy with the ferocity of a warrior on fire.

Only later we learned that actually she hadn't fired a shot when her Humvee crashed and, severely wounded, she was quickly surrounded by the enemy. Wonder Woman morphed into Cinderella when American soldiers, all men, rescued her as she lay captive in a hospital held by hostile Iraqi troops.

Pfc. Lynch testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform the other day, displaying none of the bravado of certain senior female officers campaigning for women in combat. She had been there, done that, and recognized her limitations. Jessica Lynch deserves the honor we pay to all young Americans, male and female, who wear the uniform. But Pfc. Lynch, never responsible for inventing or perpetuating the myth, scoffs at the Pentagon spinners who tried to turn her into "a little Rambo."

Reporters and editors back home were eager to buy the Pentagon fairy tale of how she fought off her attackers, and they had a lot of company. A lot of people wanted her story to be true, to shut up once and for all the skeptics of women on the battlefield...

[tequila]

A shame that so many know PFC Lynch's story but not SGT Leigh Ann Hester's.

[Maggie]

Maximus et al--
Where I struggle, though, is with the fact that most of the men in these kinds of units could probably be classified as alpha males, and the ingrained tendency to protect those weaker could, potentially, be an issue. You'll notice a lot of "coulds" and "mights"--because I don't know. I've never been in combat, so I don't know how a squad mate might react if he has a female in his unit who comes under fire. I do know that women have been successful in standoff combat roles (like fighter pilots, etc.) but that's an entirely different area.

I was a volunteer firefighter for 14 years. This was a definite problem and infuriated me no end. The attitude had nothing to do with ability, the men I usually ran with were the ones doing the training too and they knew I could do the job. They simply could not seem to back off and LET me do it at times. It led to a catch-22 situation: They were worried about having a woman on the team not because she was incapable of doing the job but because she was a distraction--and not because of what she did or didn't do but because of THEIR OWN reaction to a woman on the job. It left me wondering exactly what I was supposed to do....

Maggie

[Schmedlap]

Kings of War posted a piece titled, "Women at War" from a NY Times op-ed. The gist of it...

The U.S. ground combat exclusion policy is outdated. Women from many countries have shown themselves to be valuable contributors in our wars – from conventional warfare to countering insurgencies. At least twelve countries around the globe allow women to serve on the front lines. Why are the U.S. and the UK behind the times? Or, should our role remain limited on the battlefield?

I posted a couple responses, but then quickly saw where the comment section was going, so I called it a day. The gist of my responses...

In response to the article...

The author takes a theater-specific, mission-specific anecdote and turns it into justification for a sweeping policy change. Among other issues that I have with this piece, I have a problem with the leading question that, at least twelve countries around the globe allow women to serve on the front lines. Why are the U.S. and the UK behind the times? That’s like asking, “some high school baseball team has a girl playing left field, so why doesn’t the Boston Red Sox start recruiting women softball players?”

The US military, in terms of its degree of lethality and the manner in which it is used, is very difficult to compare to any other military. Even if one could find some close matches, American culture is unique and the role of women in the the US military is as much a function of the way in which we use our forces as it is a function of the attitudes of our society about the role of women in combat. If our infantry units did little more than set up base camps in safe areas, like many other western military units, then our society might have a different opinion of combat and, by extension, the role of women in combat. If we were continually threatened – or at least perceived that we were – with existential threats, like the Israelis, then we might demand more of all of our citizens, including women. But neither of those are the case for the US.

I hope that policy makers will look at the example given and recognize how narrow this set of circumstances is, and that those policy makers will be hesitant to consider it as a justification for making sweeping policy changes.

And then my response to a commenter who wanted to know the justification for opposing the policy change.

I don’t think the burden of persuasion in this case is on the party “opposing change.” I think the burden of persuasion is on the party proposing the change. Why is the current policy inadequate? We’ve been given a theater-specific, mission-specific anecdote and the story includes a summary of how we adapted to make the FET possible within the construct of our current personnel regulations. So why the need for a change? It seems that changing the policy would be a broad, long-term alteration for a very specific, short-term use.

Am I making any sense here or am I smoking crack?

I was particularly struck by commenters who assumed that our policy should be guided by equal opportunity.