Women in Combat - Essay Example

? Women in Combat From time immemorial there has been a division between the sexes. Men protected, women sustained. Men fought in wars, and women raised children and kept the homefires burning. All of these jobs were vital for the continued survival and progression of the human race. But in recent decades, roles based on gender have increasingly withered on the vine. This has happened to such an extent that in some armies women now fight in combat situations. Proponents of these policies say that this is the ultimate form of equality, and that every women should have the right to fight and die for the country that they love. Others suggest that women are not fit for combat service and are a detriment to the effectiveness of any fighting force. The truth is that women should not be permitted to serve in the armed forces in combat roles even should they wish to do so. Another argument, which is not currently relevant but which may occur at any time, is whether or not women should be drafted into the armed forced should a draft be reinstated. This raises interesting issues. In the course of this paper I will examine some of the objections to the idea of women serving in the armed forces and I will conclude by discussing the potential issues around a draft. The preponderance of evidence suggests that women are ill-suited for combat missions. Gender roles have changed a great deal in the decades since the 1960s when women began to enter the workforce in droves. The rise of human rights law required companies and the government to find ways to accommodate women, who were often unable to display the same strength as men. Firefighting units altered their training regimes, for example, in order to accommodate women. All of these things are impressive achievements. We should celebrate the continued integration of our wives, sister, daughters, and mothers into society at large and into the workplace. Women need to play a more substantial and significant role in the world. But where can that line be drawn? Critics of deploying women in combat roles point to the various accommodations made to women in different sectors of society. They suggest that there is no room for accommodations in wartime. It would be nice to have more physically disabled people on the battlefield in order to encourage diversity, but they would compromise the mission. Only the most physically and mentally fit individuals should form the tip of the spear, the combat units that make up the military. This is the crux of the opposition to women in the military. In the American military today, women are not involved in combat roles. They make up only around 14 percent of the active Army (Army.mil). Catherine Ross served in Iraq as a civil affairs sergeant attached to a combat brigade and argued recently that women should be allowed to serve in combat roles. While in Iraq, I was directly attached to an infantry battalion. I went everywhere they did, lived as they did and faced the same dangers they did every time I went “outside the wire” to conduct infrastructure assessments, which was nearly every day. There is nothing special or unique about what I experienced. Many female soldiers have been or currently are in the same situation — going outside the wire and facing the possibility of I.E.D.’s, small arms fire and more. The fact is that as “support” we end up attached to infantry, artillery and other combat arms units, and make enemy contact. Despite this, I was blind to the big picture. I suppose I had just guzzled down the Kool-Aid and drove on. It took getting out of the Army for me to see how women in the military are truly viewed and treated (Ross). With due respect to Ms. Ross, her observations do not make an especially strong case for allowing to fight in the military. She may have returned in one piece from Iraq, but despite the fact that she was in a combat zone she did not have to survive the stress and difficulty of engaging the enemy in a combat sense. There are a number of powerful arguments which she overlooks when considering the question of whether whether or not women should serve in combat. The truth is that morale is a serious concern in every military around the world. In order for an army to be in the best condition to fight, every person in that army must be ready to deploy at a moment's notice. They have to be fighting fit and have to be able to focus exclusively on this mission. There is a great deal of research that suggests that women may have a more difficult time doing this, due to their attachment to their children and the potential that they may become pregnant. The potential for pregnancy can effect deployment readiness (Fenner, 13). Hormonal levels are also a concern as they may limit combat effectiveness for women at certain times. These arguments may not be politically correct, but they are true in the end. Additionally, there are a number of potential health problems that women can suffer if put in combat. One is post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which is shown to occur more than twice as often in women as in men. Because captured women in the military have a much higher likelihood of being sexually assaulted, the potential for PTSD in this situation is high too (IFHC). These are serious concerns that any military considering including women in combat roles must take into account. There are other serious concerns which must be taken into acount. A recent roundtable discussion also determined Musculoskeletal injuries were an issue: [These] injuries are common among women in the military, largely because of poorly designed equipment and armor. For example, women suffer pelvic floor injuries from parachute equipment, which can lead to urinary incontinence. These differences in equipment size and design were discovered decades ago, yet problems persist (IFHC). This is evidently an issue which can be correctly. It is nevertheless a serious concern. There are also a number genitourinary issues which may result from not being able to go the bathroom outside during an especially long drive in a convoy (Robbins). Some of this things may not be a topic of conversation for polite company, but they must be discussed in order to reach a consensus on this complex question. Inviting women into the combat zone also carries with it other risks, including the effect on moral of fraternization. One need only look at the recent case of Daniel Menard, the Canadian general in charge of Afghanistan forces to see a serious illustration of the dangers of fraternization (Verma). Menard was relieved of duty due to the romantic relationship he developed with a female staffer. The damage to morale in that situation must have been incalculable. To lose a commanding officer, not to an enemy bullet but to the temptation of a romantic relationship thousands of miles from home was a serious blow to the forces stationed there in Afghanistan. This situation shows how easy it can be for even the most decorated officers to let their guard down far from home and in the company of members of the opposite sex. For those who point to Israel as an example of a country that permits women to serve in combat roles, it should be noted that Israel national security situation is very different than America's. Israel is a much small country with a much smaller population (Donnelly). It is under constant duress in an existential sense. Conscription is a fact of life as is mandatory military training. These things are a result of the very different context in that country which is not much like the situation in the United States. The U.S. does not face threats on all of its borders and is not outnumbered by its enemies. It could be said that Israel's women are needed to serve in combat roles out of a kind of desperation. Even if women were permitted to participate in combat, what would happen in draft situations? Would women be drafted to serve in such contexts, ripped away from their children and family and thrown on to a battlefield? The very idea is shocking and it is shocking for a reason. Women play an invaluable role in our society today. They are in every way the equal of men. They are breaking every glass ceiling available. The leaders of countries such as Germany and Brazil are now women. But combat in a war-zone is something that should be the exclusive preserve of men, as it has been from time immemorial. There are a number of issues relating to strength that raise serious concerns about women participating in such situations. There is also the political question of whether legislators would be willing to support such an idea based on the negative public opinion that likely attaches to it. These are very serious concerns which would most likely scuttle any effort to alter the law in the future. Women should not serve in combat roles. Works consulted Donnelly, Elaine. “Women in Combat, Ctd.” The Corner: National Review February 16, 2010. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/194937/women-combat-ctd/elaine-donnelly Fenner, Lorry, and Marie DeYoung. Women in combat: civic duty or military liability? Georgetown University Press, 2001 Institute of Federal Health Care. “Issues Affecting Women in Military Service.” Summary of Roundtable Discussion. October 2010. Robbins, Seth. “VA, military facing challenges of women's health care.” Stars and Stripes. July 31, 2010. http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/va-military-facing-challenges-of-women-s-health-care-1.112971 Catherine Ross. “Home Fires.” New York Times. February 15, 2010. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/womens-work/?ref=opinion Verma, Sonia. “Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan relieved of duty.” Globe and Mail. November 23, 2010. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-top-soldier-in-afghanistan-relieved/article1585697/ “Women in the Army.” http://www.army.mil/women/ Read More