Women in combat

[Camerus]

We as a society have (rightly) declared that men and women are equal.  Distinctions between men and women are becoming increasingly blurred in virtually all areas of life.  As long as one is physically and mentally qualified, I can't think of a single compelling logical or moral reason why the military should be an exception to this principle. 

Women do serve in the military.

There are two main arguments against women in combat, and both need to be addressed before one can try to use logic to justify putting women in combat units.

The first is the resistance this move will find from the men in these combat units.  As has been noted, Israel attempted to place women in combat units and gave up the policy when they saw its effects.  Simply arguing that the "men should get over it" isn't logical.

The second is the unreadiness of the public to accept female casualties the way they do male casualties.  Remember how everyone got so upset at the Iranian chick dying during the demonstrations, when dozens of men died without much comment from the western public?  Multiply that by hundreds of cases, and you can start to see how the "cost of war" will become disproportionately higher if a significant fraction of the dead are women.

Neither of these reactions is logical, but if we are to logically address the issue, we must acknowledge that the reactions exist, and would make the introduction of mixed-gender combat units risky.  Women-only combat units might be an answer, but were do you get the critical senior NCOs for such a unit?  And women-only combat units would surely be disproportionately targeted by an enemy, in order to exploit the weakness of the scheme to public pressures as women die in large numbers.

I am sure women will be in combat units at some point, but I don't see how we are going to get there from here.  Wishing away the problems will doom such efforts to failure, even if such wishing-away is accompanied by appeals to morality and logic.

I agree those are valid points.  In fact, I deliberately left out "practical" reasons because I do think in practice there would be some difficulty in implementing that change right now.

On the other hand, important cultural shifts are generally met with some from of opposition and resistance.  The main question, of course, is to what extent those forces are still strong enough to prevent the change.

Personally, I have no direct contact in any way with the army. My opinion of its attitudes and how its men behave is largely founded on history books, the media and, frankly, broad societal stereotypes.  I'm not in a position to say to what extent the army is "ready" for that change. 

As for the general public's readiness to accept female casualties, I'm not sure we are that far off from acceptance of it.  It is a difficult thing to gauge, of course.  But there are indicators.  I think it's safe to say acceptance of women's expanding role in the military has increased, and our language has changed to reflect that (i.e. "the men and women of the armed forces").  Documentaries and the news deal increasingly with women in the military, and that helps to normalize the notion of women in the military.  From there, the leap to combat roles may not be that large in the public's mind.  Similarly, women are increasingly filling other traditionally male jobs that involve chance of bodily harm.   On the other hand, other factors (such as those you have outlined) suggest we may not be there yet.

For the time being, however, not having women in combat roles remains a glaring inconsistency to a fundamental pillar of our modern values, namely the equality of the sexes.  I tend to feel when a democracy has such an obvious inconsistency, progressive forces will work towards eliminating it.

[grumbler]

Beeb, do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads?

Yes.

You have any cites on this?  Neither of your links stated this to be true.  Artillery, yes (and that is further than the US goes) but nothing about infantry. I'd be interested to know just how many Canadian infantrymen are female.

From one of my links (the CBC one)

About two per cent of Canadian regular force combat troops are women

and of course

Canada is considered a progressive nation with respect to its policy of equal access and full gender integration in its Armed Forces.

not to mention

The Canadian Armed Forces opened all occupations, including combat roles, to women in 1989. Only submarines were excluded and they followed in 2000.

Of course I would dare to say that there are NO female infantrymen.

So when the question was "do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads" and you answered "yes," do you mean yes, or no?

The reason this is of interest is because it gives us a basis for comparing some theoretical approach to the actual practical approach of the Canadian Forces.  If CF have no female infantrymen, we can look to see whether that is because none wish to so serve (which would astonish me), because none make it through training, or because the applicants are deterred by something other than training.  If CF have women infantrymen, then we can look to see if they have met the physical requirements that men had to meet before the integration, or whether the standards were changed to allow more women to participate.

As an aside, it appears that Israel has again decided to allow women infantrymen, having formed the Caracal Battalion in 2000 as a bi-gender infantry unit in the territorial forces.

[grumbler]

It's stated in the article that I posted, as well. Canada is cited as the most forward-thinking country as it regards women in the military.

It is not stated in the article you posted, either. 

Seems a simple question:  how many combat infantrymen are in the Canadian Forces? 

The answer "Canada is cited as the most forward-thinking country as it regards women in the military" is non-responsive.

[grumbler]

Women drivers? 

No survivors!

[merithyn]

It is not stated in the article you posted, either. 

Seems a simple question:  how many combat infantrymen are in the Canadian Forces? 

The answer "Canada is cited as the most forward-thinking country as it regards women in the military" is non-responsive.

A lovely table on percentages of what jobs in the CF here:

http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf

Scroll down to the bottom for your numbers. Women represent 1.4% of combat arms troops in the CF.

[Ed Anger]

Periods would give the squad's position away.

[Berkut]

It is not stated in the article you posted, either. 

Seems a simple question:  how many combat infantrymen are in the Canadian Forces? 

The answer "Canada is cited as the most forward-thinking country as it regards women in the military" is non-responsive.

A lovely table on percentages of what jobs in the CF here:

http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf

Scroll down to the bottom for your numbers. Women represent 1.4% of combat arms troops in the CF.

That still does not answer the question.

Also, I am not really sure Canada is a good comparison. What might work in a rather small military that sees relatively limited combat may not work in a much larger military pulling troops from a much larger and more diverse pool, that is in a lot more combat a lot more regularly.

Although I think the US military is going to have to figure this out eventually. I just don't buy the idea that the reason they have not rushed into it is simply emotional bias against women. There are real problems there, and they need solutions. War is not a good place to engage in social engineering, most of the time.

[grumbler]

A lovely table on percentages of what jobs in the CF here:

http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf

Scroll down to the bottom for your numbers. Women represent 1.4% of combat arms troops in the CF.

So I gues the answer to my question is "nobody knows." 

I suppose it wouldn't be obvious to someone who is unfamiliar with the subject, but "combat arms" is a much broader category than "combat infantryman" (aka "grunts") and includes radiomen and even clerks in combat units, as well as artillery gunners, tanks drivers, etc.  Knowing the percentage of combat arms made up of women rtells us nothing about the number of female combat infantrymen.

The reason the issue of combat infantrymen comes up is that it is probably the most physically demanding activity a military person can engage in (gunners might argue this, but their physical effort is over a shorter period of time; grunts often hump 150+ pounds of gear for ten hours a day for several days).  Thus, it would be the likeliest one to have either (1) no women qualify for it, even if they are theoretically eligible, or (2) the standards change so that women can qualify.  Either of those outcomes would be informative, and it would be even more informative if neither was true.

[Berkut]

I would like to hear from one of our resident grunts about what those standards actually are beyond the "book" standards.

From the talks I ahve had with infantry grunts, meaning actual 11B type guys out there on patrol, they spend an appreciable amount of their time working out and staying in shape - simply passing the basic standards for physical fitness is not necessarily adequate to be an effective combat infantryman.

[grumbler]

Periods would give the squad's position away.

Then use exclamation points.

[Neil]

Not to mention the PPCLI officer that Meri mentioned - unless you think Infantry regiments don't count as infantry.

She was actually part of the RCHA, not the PPCLI.  Both units are part of the 1st Canadian Mechanized Brigade, based in Edmonton.

They usually form the enemy force in the local militia's maneuvers.

[Malthus]

Here's an interesting article on the Israeli experience:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/20091028.aspx

Israeli Women Volunteer For Combat
October 28, 2009: Israel has, over the last few decades, expanded the number of combat jobs women can volunteer for. Israel conscripts men (for three years) and women (for two years). But women have more exemptions (especially marriage). Women who volunteer for combat duty are hard core, because not only will they have to undergo some hard training, but will have to serve three years on active duty, plus several years as reservists. This is necessary to justify the longer training required.

Like many other countries, Israeli military police units contain men and women. Same with dog handlers, border guards, artillery units and some search and rescue units. Women have long served as flight instructors, as well as trainers for tank crews.

There is also a largely female infantry unit, the Caracal Battalion. Part of the 512th Brigade in Southern Command, the battalion was formed in 2000 to provide a place for women who wanted to be in the infantry. It's a light infantry units that mainly serves along the Jordanian or Egyptian borders. The battalion took part in safeguarding Israeli civilians and troops during the 2005 evacuation of Gaza. Initially, about half the troops in Caracal were female, as are most of the officers and NCOs, and, usually, the commander. Now about 90 percent of the Caracal members are women. While many troops see Caracal as a publicity stunt and a sop to the feminists, the unit has performed well, and has a reputation as a non-nonsense and reliable outfit.

During their independence war in 1948, Israel had female infantry units, but these were withdrawn. Not because the women couldn't fight, but because Arab units facing them became more fanatical, and less likely to surrender, when they realized they were fighting women. Conservative Jewish clergy in Israel want women to be barred from combat jobs, while Arab radicals are urging more women to get involved in terrorism operations, including suicide bombings.

The last contradicts the story I heard when I was in Israel - that the real reason women were withdrawn from combat roles was the increased likelihood of being taken prisoner, where they were (allegedly) very likely to be raped by Arab soldiers - leading to escalating reprisals. Of course in 1948 with the state facing extinction, this wasn't a major priority.

[alfred russel]

A lovely table on percentages of what jobs in the CF here:

http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf

Scroll down to the bottom for your numbers. Women represent 1.4% of combat arms troops in the CF.

So I gues the answer to my question is "nobody knows." 

I suppose it wouldn't be obvious to someone who is unfamiliar with the subject, but "combat arms" is a much broader category than "combat infantryman" (aka "grunts") and includes radiomen and even clerks in combat units, as well as artillery gunners, tanks drivers, etc.  Knowing the percentage of combat arms made up of women rtells us nothing about the number of female combat infantrymen.

The reason the issue of combat infantrymen comes up is that it is probably the most physically demanding activity a military person can engage in (gunners might argue this, but their physical effort is over a shorter period of time; grunts often hump 150+ pounds of gear for ten hours a day for several days).  Thus, it would be the likeliest one to have either (1) no women qualify for it, even if they are theoretically eligible, or (2) the standards change so that women can qualify.  Either of those outcomes would be informative, and it would be even more informative if neither was true.

Another point would be that, if very few are able to qualify, is it worth the trouble? If 1-2% of your combat infantry would be women, is that worth addressing all the social problems that have been brought up, or would it be easier to just recruit 1-2% more men? Even if it would be easier to recruit extra men, is it fair to limit the opportunities for the women that could do these jobs?

[grumbler]

Another point would be that, if very few are able to qualify, is it worth the trouble? If 1-2% of your combat infantry would be women, is that worth addressing all the social problems that have been brought up, or would it be easier to just recruit 1-2% more men? Even if it would be easier to recruit extra men, is it fair to limit the opportunities for the women that could do these jobs?

I think that, in the name of justice, we would need to ignore the percentages of women who would qualify to carry out a role as a factor in deciding whether we would allow women to apply for that role. 

As I have said, I think that, forty years from now, people will be amazed that this was even an issue.  However, that doesn't mean that it is easy to get there from here.  In fact, I don't see a good way to do it.

Gradual relaxation may be the answer (i.e. have a plan to transition slowly from "no women in combat" to "no job closed to qualified women") but that still doesn't deal with the issue of fairness to a woman who wants to be, and could be, a grunt right now.  We can live with imperfect justice, but clearly it is better not to.

I think it would probably be more useful to discuss how to get there from here, rather than whether or not it is wise to go there.  Wise or not, it seems sure to happen.

[The Brain]

Can't we just end war instead? We have the weapons for it.