The military: Do women belong in combat?

The mission of the U.S. military is to defend this nation and its interests, said NationalReview.com in an editorial, not to be an agent of “social transformation’’ or “a laboratory for feminist innovation.” Nonetheless, departing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced last week his decision to “eliminate all gender-based barriers to service’’—including the long-standing ban on female troops serving in combat roles. The problem, of course, is that most of the “gender-based barriers” to women serving in combat—their relative lack of strength and stamina, and the corrosive effect of sexual or romantic tension on unit cohesion—are functions of biology that can’t just be eliminated by a bureaucratic order. Evidently, though, the White House cares more about “gender correctness” than the effectiveness of our front-line troops, said William Kristol in WeeklyStandard.com. Our national security is being jeopardized for an “irresponsible act of liberal social experimentation.”

You silly boys—the “experiment has already happened,” said William Saletan in Slate.com, “and it worked.” More than 20,000 women served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and though they were not officially in combat roles, female soldiers were tested time and again in firefights and ambushes, fighting no less bravely or effectively than their male counterparts, with 152 losing their lives. By lifting the outdated “ban” on women in combat roles, Panetta is merely acknowledging this new reality, and granting qualified servicewomen access to promotions and higher pay. Even as a female soldier, I used to have my doubts about women serving in combat, said Kayla Williams, also in Slate.com.Then I started going out on foot patrols in Iraq with other troops as an Arabic linguist. “My ability to help successfully accomplish the mission” was all that mattered to my comrades. Indeed, my ability to talk to Iraqis often gave my unit a vital advantage.

That’s “false logic,” said Kathleen Parker in The Washington Post. No one disputes that female soldiers have an important role to play, or even that they can “return fire when necessary.” But most women lack the upper-body strength of the vicious men they may meet in face-to-face combat. And is the nation really prepared for grainy videotapes of our captured 18-year-old daughters being raped and tortured by the enemy? The presence of women in combat units will only make traumatic battle conditions worse, said former Marine Ryan Smith in The Wall Street Journal. During the invasion of Baghdad, I spent days at a time huddled with 25 fellow Marines in an assault vehicle built for 15. We urinated in bottles, defecated inches from each other’s faces, and were so caked in filth and dried blood that they “lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.” Trust me: No soldier wants women witnessing, and taking part in, all that.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Old soldiers should “stop whining,” said Ralph Peters in the New York Post. Women already play a major role in the armed services, and have every right to serve in combat roles—as long as they can meet the same standards of fitness, strength, and toughness as their male counterparts. That’s the key, said Max Boot in CommentaryMagazine.com. If fitness requirements are lowered to be “fairer” to female recruits, our national security will suffer. But if “standards are enforced evenhandedly,” letting women have access to combat positions only expands “the pool of talented individuals who can contribute to the fight.”