RSS
Home
If women can defend Fort Hood, why can't they defend America?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Sgt. Kimberly Munley (AP)
It raises a good question: If women can defend Fort Hood, why can't they defend America?
The simple answer is, it's policy, but isn't it time we changed that policy?
Department of Defense policy states that "women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground." According to the policy, "Direct ground combat takes place well forward on the battlefield."
What forward battlefield? What battlefield? There's no forward battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a world of car bombs, snipers, suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices, and civilian airplane attacks. The battlefield is everywhere and everything.
And so are women. More women have fought and died in Iraq than in all the wars since World War II put together. Over 206,000 have served in the Middle East since March 2003, most of them in Iraq; and over 600 have been wounded and 104 have died in Iraq and another 15 have died in Afghanistan, according to the Department of Defense.
There are 10,000 female personnel in Iraq --that's one in 10 soldiers-- and 4,000 more in Afghanistan. They're driving trucks, treating wounded and shooting when attacked. More than 100 have given their lives in Iraq; another 15 have died in Afghanistan.
It seems arcane to suggest that women can't take combat risks without harming overall military performance, but arcane thinking appears to be the driving force behind the ban:
…the military--from Pentagon to the troops on the ground--has been slow to recognize the service these women perform, or even to see them as real soldiers. Rather, it is permeated with age-old stereotypes of women as passive sex objects who have no business fighting and cannot be relied upon in battle.
Earlier this year, the secretary of the Navy ordered that women are not to be assigned in any operations "likely to result in being exposed to hostile fire."
Sgt Munley not only exposed herself to hostile fire, she was shot, and she still managed to take out the Army psychiatrist. Would the Secretary of the Navy care to comment?
The Center for Military Readiness, which supports the ban, blames the expanding roles of women in the military on "the agendas of civilian feminists." War is no time or place for "social experiments," the center argues. "The needs of the military --and the nation-- must come first."
That's the right principle but that doesn't mean women aren't capable, or would the Center for Military Readiness argue that Kimberly Munley wasn't capable of putting the needs of her military 
and her nation first. And yet, I can picture the same rationale being used back in the days when it was an issue whether women were capable of police duty beyond the stationhouse desk; today they're on the beat and in the squad car, and no one bats an eye. What about:
and her nation first. And yet, I can picture the same rationale being used back in the days when it was an issue whether women were capable of police duty beyond the stationhouse desk; today they're on the beat and in the squad car, and no one bats an eye. What about: --Spc. Ashley Pullen, who earned a Bronze Star in Iraq by running through a line of fire and using her body as a shield to save a wounded soldier
--Spc. Monica Brown got a Silver Star for rescuing five injured comrades under heavy fire in Afghanistan
--Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester led her team through a line of fire in Iraq to outflank and destroy insurgents who had ambushed her convoy. Perhaps the secretary of the Navy or the Center for Military Readiness would care to combat on the role feminism played in the work these soldiers did? At their moments of duress, these women clearly weren't thinking about who was the better sex, and, I dare say, they aren't feminists; they're soldiers and they're patriots who not only did their job, but did it under battlefield conditions.
No one's saying every enlisted woman should be assigned combat duty, but neither is every man --nor is there any shame if you're not cut out for battle duty. Military operations cover a broad front and all who serve provide valuable service to their units and to their country. Let's not even get into the report issued this past week by several retired military leaders citing that 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 are unfit for military service because of poor physical condition, criminal history, or failure to complete high school.
This is like the don't ask, don't tell policy. We shouldn't worry about what sex they happen to be or what sex they happen to be into; our concern should be whether they are fit to fight --period. And let's not kid ourselves: If we have unfit men performing in combat roles, it doesn't make our fighting forces better, does it?
Wouldn't our combat forces be that much better if we replaced unfit men with fit women? Sorry, but if there's a failed "social experiment," it's in barring capable soldiers from combat duty strictly on sexual grounds. There's no doubt Sgt Munley will be decorated for her heroism, though if she's a typical soldier, she'll just tell you she was doing her job. Frankly, if we really want to recognize her efforts, the best way would be to end the ban on women in combat.
Would you not agree?
More About:
Military Matters
Related Articles:
Comments
It's amazing what passed for entertainment in the "good old days" of television. You'll have to remember who Tiny Tim was (a 60s icon …
FYI: Aronowitz is no slouch: An MD from Yale, further training at the Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine (where he later taught), he's currently …
