Republicans Back Off Restricting Women in Combat

Last week I wrote about a Republican-sponsered plan to limit the role of women in combat service and support positions. The House has now thoroughly defeated that proposal, 390-39, leaving those decisions in the hands of the Pentagon. I'm starting to have mixed feelings about this entire issue.

I had originally said:

Democrats rightly highlight that this could limit military flexibility, but I'd opine that their real reason for opposition to this bill is the inability of some of the American public to handle female losses in a combat zone. Republicans want women out of the combat zone for exactly that reason, as Rep. McHugh notes. It's about PR, not competency.

I concluded the post by saying:

American women want to serve. Some have died. More will die, whether we want them to, or not. If we've learned anything, it is that there is no frontline in modern warfare, and the enemy can strike a brigade-level base with mortar and rocket fire, as easily as they can a support convoy, or an infantry combat patrol.

My advice to Congress? Let them fight. America's female soldiers earned that right, even if you don't have the stomach for it.

As you can imagine, I got a few responses to this post. All of them were polite, but none of them were supportive of my position.

Several people responded in the post comments or in email with comments condemning the concept of women in combat positions on for several reasons. Some claimed a respect for femininity or motherhood, and others seemed to combine those feelings with a longing for more genteel times.

While I'm sensitive to those closely held beliefs, and realize that are probably shared by a majority of Americans, I find these sentiments to be a kind of soft, sweet bigotry.

It is a form of discrimination, and no less wrong than the once firmly-held beliefs that other minorities couldn't fight. It was wrong to be prejudiced against the "Fighting 99th" and the 332rd "Red Tails, " that never lost a single escorted bomber to enemy fighters. It was wrong to be bigoted against the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the highest decorated military unit in all of U.S. military history.

Some female soldiers can perform to the same level of physical and mental standards as their male counterparts. Admittedly, the number of female soldiers that can physically compete with men is just a fraction of female soldiers, but some can do it, nevertheless. With modern physical training methods, some female soldiers will undoubtably be in better physical condition than many frontline soldiers of previous wars.

For these reasons, I feel that female soldiers should be given the opportunity to serve as equal members of not just combat service and support units, but frontline combat teams. I just don't think that the military has thus far provided a sufficient level of training for female soldiers to carry out any of these roles competently on the modern battlefield.

There seems to be lesser physical standards and a general lack of advanced combat training for women, which would put them at a severe readiness disadvantage in the event of enemy action (I'm basing these on anecdotal evidence from a handful of veterans. Feel free to confirm or deny these in the comments if you have supporting evidence).

Othr anecdotal evidence shows that female soldiers are capable of performing well in combat, but until the military and politically correct collection of incompetents in Washington decides to present a uniform level of training standards and allow access to all military specialties based on ability instead of gender, they won't be able to.

You see, I was wrong. It is about compentecy. And we're standing in the way of it.

This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.