Blog About All

Women In Combat

Since the formation of the Women’s Army Corps in 1942, women have held an ever-increasing role in the military. Although primarily assigned to administrative tasks at home, they also served as nurses on hospital transport aircraft carrying wounded soldiers back from the front and in field hospitals set near the front. In recognition of the service of women in the military in WWII, congress passed the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948. This bill allowed women, for the first time, to pursue careers in the military. However, this also imposed several restrictions including what is now known as the combat exclusion laws; including the prohibition of women to serve on aircraft or ships involved in combat missions. The maintenance or repeal of the exclusion is a highly debated topic.

One of the problems seems to be directly in the wording of the restriction: “Women shall not be assigned to Air Force and Navy aircraft or naval vessels ‘engaged in combat missions.’”(Wilson 18) This does not have anything to do, however, with the prohibition of women in ground combat units. The Army and Department of Defense has adopted a policy of direct combat probability code and risk rule to limit the likely hood of exposing women to direct combat.

Today, the combat exclusion seems to hamper the military rather that help it. To begin with, the number of women in the military has increased to nearly 11% of active forces (Wilson 18) with the number still growing. This increase has dramatically affected the number of “qualified” members of the armed forces available to participate in military actions. Because the term ‘engaged in combat missions’ has never been clearly defined, it has been left to the varying services to attempt to fill in the blanks and determine what the law really prohibits. For example, the Air Force defines combat mission aircraft as those whose principal mission is to deliver munitions against an enemy. This prohibits women from serving on fighter and bomber aircraft. Because the law is also interpreted as intended to protect women, they are also further prohibited from piloting reconnaissance aircraft. When the fact that women are more tolerant to G-forces than men, due to their smaller size creating a shorter distance between heart and brain, is taken into account, we can see how silly the exclusions can be.

A reason for the continued exclusion of women in combat units is the perception of interference with bonding. It is not surprising the men in an all male unit form close bonds with each other, but it is preposterous to reason that women can’t or won’t bond and their presence would prevent males from bonding with each other. Throughout history, men and women have forged extremely effective bonds which have been demonstrated among guerrilla and assorted revolutionary groups – a great many of them including a large number of women. More recently, in the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, ‘of the nearly 45,000 Eritreans in the field, fully 35% of the front line troops were women.’(Wekesser 61) Also, mixed police teams and fire-fighting units display absolutely no problem bonding with each other. In fact, all it takes for people to bond is: ‘organization for a common goal, the presence of or potential for danger, and a willingness to sacrifice.’(Wekesser 61) Not a single one of which is gender-specific. If given the option to ‘bond with women or die,’ most men would indeed bond.

Another reason for the extended restrictions is the fear of public reaction to women POW’s and women coming home in body bags. The facts are both have already occurred, and the public has taken it in stride. Also, the ever-increasing change in technology has forever altered the way war is waged. Instead of fighting ” in the trenches”, we now destroy a target from miles away, instead of firing a gun, we push a button, we even use non-manned, remote controlled reconnaissance aircraft. These advances have had the net effect of keeping Americas soldiers, male and female, away from potentially dangerous areas.

Finally, the capability of women in combat has been proved.’More than 33,000 women served in the gulf, 6 percent of the U.S. forces – the largest wartime deployment of American military women in history. They did just about everything on land, at sea and in the air except engage in the actual fighting, and even then the line was often a fuzzy one.’ (Wekesser 67) Men and women shared the same risks and 21 women gave the ultimate sacrifice. According to commander General Norman Schwarzkopf, American women had performed “magnificently.”(Wekesser 67)

What is there left to debate? Women have shown that they can handle the rigors of combat; the public has shown that they are willing to accept women casualties, and even top military commanders have admitted that women can get the job done. With these considerations and more, why not repeal the exclusions and allow women to become full members of America’s Fighting Force.