Women in the Infantry - Not a Good Idea

H/T Mustang (See sidebar for blog Links)

By Lieutenant General Gregory S. Newbold, USMC (Retired)

Spoiler Alert.  While the issue of women serving in the infantry of our Armed Forces is still officially open to review, the fix is already in and the issue has been decided.  The outcome is revealed below, but first some background…

In 2012, Leon Panetta (who served only nineteen months as the Secretary of Defense), announced just before his departure that all military occupations – including those which involve direct ground combat – would be open to women, thereby reversing not only 240 years of U.S. policy, but the lessons derived from thousands of years of warfare. 

Importantly, but almost as an afterthought, Secretary Panetta offered a caveat -- “If we find that the assignment of women in a specific position or occupation is in conflict with our stated principles, we will request an exception to policy.”  The stated principles included, “Ensuring the success of our Nation’s warfighting forces by preserving unit readiness, cohesion, and morale.”  The tone of the edict, though, was clearly opposed to this option, and the burden of high proof placed on those whose long experience might suggest another outcome.

A matter of such consequence to the security of our country deserves more engagement than by a single political appointee, even if endorsed by a President.  In fact, the Constitution of the United States (in Article I, Section 8), stipulates that it is the legislative branch that shall have the power, “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.”  This latter body, though (other than some whose shrill voices belies their lack of military experience), has been notably quiescent and has deferred to the judgment of this longtime politician and transitory occupant of the Defense Department. 

The American people -- largely informed by Hollywood fantasy and outlets biased in favor of Panetta’s measure -- are perhaps tone deaf, because they have been deceived by clever re-crafting of the issue.  To them, the issue has long been resolved because, “Aren’t women already in combat?”  (Yes, and performing very well, but the issue is women in the infantry.  Think “hand-to-hand combat,” and you’ll have a better title).  And, “If they can meet the physical standards, why not?”  (Physical requirements are well less than half of the important ingredients in the fighting power of a unit.  Fighting spirit is far greater in importance, and cohesion sapping sexual dynamics will be compounded exponentially in the remote and incredibly harsh environments of the infantry.  If Ivy League campuses can’t control these dynamics, how it can it be less so in the most primitive of human conditions?).  Or, “Warfare has changed, and it’s largely technology that will determine how we fight” (A statement repeated since the time of chariots, and refuted emphatically through today’s conflicts).  And, finally, “Other countries are already doing it, aren’t they?”  (Grossly exaggerated and not relevant to a nation with global commitments.  Beyond the hyperbole of these claims, they also don’t accommodate the emerging insistence by the issue’s champions that “fairness” [an odd word when applied to infantry combat] requires that integrated units must contain at least 20% women.)  Marketing wins over truth, and volume over logic.

Think of this.  While the American public would rise in outrage and incredulity if the government were to require the NFL to lower standards to force inclusion of women to 25% of their favorite team, they sleep through an issue whose outcome will have such grave influence on our national security.

The clock for seeking theoretical exemptions is ticking down, and while the two services most relevant to this issue faithfully test for quantifiable evidence of the impact of inclusion, the fix is already in.  The fix is in, because the decision has nothing to do with the readiness of the Armed Forces, but is solely about politics.  And politics on this issue is intimidated by those with the loudest voices and least experience or measured by those who count votes over principle and national security.  Pogo was right…“We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Kid again:  If you're not convinced, read this short take by Ryan Smith - The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat from the WSJ

In case the article disappears, here it is.

By 

RYAN SMITH

Jan. 23, 2013 7:01 p.m. ET

America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

ENLARGE

U.S. Marines rest in an amphibious assault vehicle. REUTERS

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.

Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?

Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.

Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.

Mr. Smith served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. He is now an attorney.

 Women in military - Yes, Infantry? No.