The Weaker Soldier?

Recent discussions by the US military citing homosexuality as immoral have once again launched the debate on gays in the military. Our Generals prefer to leave the current policy as is - Don't ask, don't tell, but let them fight (and die) for their country in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's an interesting debate, and clearly I'm biased on the side of open admissions. But sound debate merits sound thinking, and if you strip away the rhetoric and emotional reactions, this issue is quite typical of the provincial mentality throughout our military's history. It's not really all that surprising that the military would resist any change. If one thing never changes, it's their resisting change.

But what is or should be surprising is how little is being said in the mainstream media about the current status of women in our military. Understanding the historic journey of women in the military may offer insight to the future battle facing gays in the military.

Women have been serving in or alongside our military since the Declaration of Independence. For most of our history, women were relegated to washing clothes, nursing, cleaning bedpans for sick soldiers, and cooking for the soldiers.

It took a world war, two actually, to prompt Congress to officially welcome women into military service. Congress approved the creation of the WAAC in 1942. And yet, it wasn't until 1948 that President Truman authorized the Women's Army Corps as a permanent part of the Army.

When we shifted to an all-volunteer military in 1973, the Army began recruiting women aggressively for its Reserve components. By 1974, the minimum age for women was made the same as for men. By 1975, the military no longer mandated involuntary discharge of women because of pregnancy and parenthood. By 1976, tours of overseas duty were increased from twenty-four months to thirty-six months for single females, the same as for single males. And by 1977, Fort McClennan initiated its first gender-integrated training class for Military Police.

Today, women account for approximately 15% of our armed forces (20% of the Air Force). In a mere 60 years, women have gone from WAAC to equal partners in the job of defending our nation ... NOT! As commonly known in the world of tautologies, not all equals are created equal.

Women in the military have opportunities equal to men for receiving defensive weapons training, but can not be assigned to direct combat positions. Women can work as pilots, intelligence officers, logistic specialists, in support roles for the infantry, as paratroopers and mechanics, but not in direct combat. Women are also restricted from serving in front-line infantry, tank or artillery units, and in Special Forces units.

So it's okay to have women serve as police officers in our communities, run multi-billion dollar corporations, work as surgeons and cut into our bodies, work as engineers and design our bridges and tunnels, and build them too! Women can pilot commercial airplanes, preach in churches, defend clients in courtrooms, hold political positions affecting the lives of tens of millions of people. They can even manufacture weapons and run for President. They just can't participate in front-line direct combat.

In the new reality of dispersed aggressive tactics, how does one define "direct combat" or "front line"? Is everything outside Baghdad's Green Zone the front line? With increasingly sophisticated IEDs, does every road, building and vehicle constitute direct combat?

The military does not go into great detail to explain their reasoning. Is the fear that women are weaker than men? Do the Generals worry about having to deal with "the monthly problem"? Or is it that our military fears the stigma of having gun toting soldiers getting pregnant?

Do they fear that women will dilute their testosterone-rich environment? Sorry Captain, I can't go attack the enemy at the moment. My cramps are killing me! Has the US military ever done a study on the effects of circumcision on the fighting abilities of men? Do left-handed people make better snipers? What about bellybuttons? Do you suppose that innies might make better officers than outies?

Where do we draw the line? Or is it simply ridiculous to draw these lines at all? Having survived the Victorian Age, isn't civilization ready to give women equal opportunity in war? Does the ability to lactate somehow make you less effective in the heat of battle? Is it sexist to let women fight, and even die, for our country?

At the time I wrote this, 129 women in our military have died in Iraq and Afghanistan out of 5605 total casualties.