What I hope is an objective look at women in Combat Arms

There have been many discussion on RallyPoint about women in Combat Arms and what that means for our military. I would like to take the opportunity to write what I believe about this subject and hope to get some feedback from my fellow service members here.

First let me say that I am not opposed to women in combat arms but obviously the standards must remain the same. I also do not see this issue simply going away so I feel the best response is to find a way to allow women to serve in combat arms, if they so choose, but to also ensure standards, readiness, morale, and troop welfare are also met. I believe this topic also dovetails with what I believe is a necessary re-evaluation and reorganization of our military forces, particularly the US Army. However, I will not get into that part but possibly only mention brief portions as the apply to the topic of women in combat arms.

So, let us begin. The first point I would like to make is that there are likely to be females who can meet the standards and even be quite successful in combat arms. However, that number is likely to be exceedingly low compared to the size of the overall force. Between abilities and desire there are not going to be too many women entering combat arms at any given time. Therefore it would make sense, on a number of levels, to have specific units that will be integrated with women, not all. This is similar to the Israeli model with the Caracal battalion that has both men and women serving in the infantry. This has several advantages. First, it allows for the women in the unit to better establish camaraderie with each other and have a support system in place in which they have someone who understands their needs. Second, if there are issues with integration, which we would be foolish to assume there won't be, they will be contained within a few smaller units rather than being Army wide. Also, if implemented correctly these units can be built from a platoon up as women enter the combat arms. This model also allows the opportunities for advancement that have been clamored for allowing females in combat arms to attain the rank of LTC and CSM. However, I do feel that the infantry, and possibly all, of these units should be within the US Army and the US Marine Corps should be exempt. The USMC is too small to be able to create these distinct units and I do not feel that it is asking too much for a woman to join the Army if they wish to be combat arms.

Second, there have been many ways for women to serve in combat and on the front lines in the past two wars that we are likely going to need, and even expand on, going forward as asymmetric threats and low-intensity conflicts become the norm. Therefore, we should be sure to keep the female engagement teams and expand the abilities of women in Civil Affairs and PsyOps. Along with these capabilities the military, again this is mostly in reference to the US Army, needs to expand it's abilities to deal with small wars by creating more units specific to that tasks, such as Peacekeeping forces. This delves into that portion about the military re-evaluating so I will just say that this would be an added opportunity for women to serve in combat/front-line type roles. (On a side-note for people concerned about being able to fight the Chinese if we prepare for low-intensity warfare, this is exactly what the USMC did before WWII and we all know how that turned out. For more info check out Max Boot's the Savage Wars of Peace).

Finally, training. Currently our training model allows women to be ill-prepared for the rigors of combat. I'm not entirely sure of the answer here but before women can enter combat arms there must be an increase in training to bring them up to the standards expected of men in those same roles. This was the chief complaint of a USMC female officer who failed the IOC. The Marine physical training she had received as a female was inadequate. Furthermore, even if it is decided women should not be allowed in combat arms there is no reason that schooling opportunities should not be. That means more specifically Ranger School and the SF Q Course among others. If women can complete these schools then there is no reason not have have more highly qualified leaders within the service. And if they are allowed in combat arms this will only enhance their capabilities there.

In summation, I believe that if properly implemented there is no reason why the US Military cannot have women in combat arms roles. Yes it will be difficult and no not every women can carry a 155mm round, or conduct a 12 click movement with the 240, or whatever other tasks we in the combat arms MOS's have been expected to do, but there are men, even in those jobs, who cannot either. This isn't about political correctness or fairness or anything else, it's about fielding the best possible force to face the future warfare situations that we are likely to face.

I look forward to your comments

Edit: I will say that I was wrong to suggest the USMC shouldn't integrate. Second, the reason for my suggestion about only integrating certain units came from discussions with a female colleague who served in MI in the 90's and was integrated into 313th MI at Ft. Bragg and how difficult it was because there were so few females in the unit.