Women in the Military:
Combat Roles Considered

There are approximately 32,000 women in the U.S. military, comprising about 13 percent of the total U.S. Armed Forces (Defense Almanac 1995). In 1970, only 1.4 percent of the total military was comprised of women, a number that more than tripled to 4.6 percent in 1975, nearly doubled to 8.3 in 1980, rose to 10 in 1985, 11 in 1990, to the current 13 percent (Government Executive March 1994).

When discussing the history of women in combat, one might think of Joan of Arc who in 1429, at age 17, successfully led French troops into battle against the English. Hundreds of women disguised themselves as men to fight in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Beginning in 1942, separate military services for women were established, but women did not gain professional military status until 1948 when President Truman signed the Women's Armed Services Integration Act which limited their number to 2 percent of the total military. In 1991, the restriction of women from flying combat aircraft was repealed, but the 1948 law still bans women from serving on naval combat vessels (Minerva Spring 1994).

Some argue that, should combat slots be open to women, women may be subjected to the draft. The male only draft was considered to be constitutional in 1981 in the Rockster V Goldberg case, largely because the draft was viewed as a way to fill combat slots -- slots from which women were barred.

In the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Years 1992-1993, Congress rescinded female combat exemption laws and then the Clinton Administration opened a quarter million previously closed combat positions to women (GAO Report, July 1996).

On October 1, 1994, the Defense Department issued a policy that rescinded the so-called "risk rule" that gauges the specialties to which women can be assigned. The policy was backed strongly by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and was the extension of the changes made in April 1993 that opened most aviation specialties, including attack helicopters, to women (Army, March 1994). The policy emphasized that no job will be closed to women just because it is dangerous, but fails to open direct offensive ground combat jobs to women (Army, March 1994). Even today, though, the official policy of the Army and Marine Corps excludes women from combat which precludes 12 percent of skilled positions and 39 percent of the total positions (GAO Report, July 1996).

Proponents of opening all positions in the military to women argue that military readiness is enhanced when there is a larger pool of applicants, whereas opponents insist that due to politics, quotas would be undeniable, thus allowing unqualified women into key military positions. Opponents of allowing women to compete for combat billets argue that it is too dangerous to put women in the position of becoming prisoners of war. Without a doubt, there is a much greater probability for acts of sexual molestation and rape with the addition of women to the front lines. The "front lines" in modern combat, however, are fluid. Although they were technically in support roles, two female U.S. soldiers were taken captive and one was sexually abused by the Iqaqis in the Gulf War. This situation made those who were already skeptical about putting women in such a compromising position further question whether women should be subjected to the horrors of combat. Many, however, argue that adult women who make the decision to join the military are aware of the consequences (Minerva, Spring 1994).

Another argument against women in combat is that they simply do not have the physical strength and endurance needed. Without a doubt, being in the military is a physically demanding job that not everyone is fit to handle. Despite this, all experts agree that there are some women, although perhaps small in number, who have the physical strength and endurance to be soldiers (Army Times, July 29, 1996). Concerning combat aviation some question whether women can handle the gravitational forces of an aircraft, but there is absolutely no evidence that says they cannot. It is interesting to note that everyone, including women, believe the physical standards for military occupational specialties (MOS) should be identical for both men and women.

Currently, all members of the armed services must pass fitness tests, which are scaled according to age and gender. There are no current tests that specifically measure the physical skills required for each military occupational specialty (MOS) -- the only way to test this is have the soldiers simply go out and perform their task. The goal is to create these gender-blind specific tests that more accurately predict a soldier's success in combat.

Another argument used to keep women out of combat billets is that they would disrupt the cohesive unit and undermine the espirit de corps. The effectiveness of the military hinges on a cohesion -- every member must completely trust and respect one another. Many argue men would not be able to trust women to be capable of accomplishing the physical demands of combat, which could lead to serious problems. In order to maintain cohesion, experts agree that all members of the military must be treated equally. A standard must be maintained to make every member feel as if he/she is part of one single unit, not separated by gender.

Romantic relationships and pregnancies also concern many experts. The argument is that romance may undermine espirit de corps and that pregnancies will hurt readiness. Although pregnancy is a major concern of many, statistics show it has little bearing on military readiness. In fact, women on the average spend a mere one fewer hour per month at work than their male counterparts. When one excludes pregnancy leave, women have a lower rate of lost time at work than their male counterparts (Minerva Spring 1994).

More than 40,000 American women served in the war against Iraq. The Marine Corps awarded twenty-three women the Combat Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War because they were engaged by Iraqi troops. Desert Storm was a huge turning point for women, much like Vietnam was for African-Americans, and it showed that modern war boundaries between combat and non-combat zones are being blurred. It makes no sense to cling to semantics (combat vs combat support) given the reality of war. Furthermore, allowing both men and women to compete for all military occupational specialties is not an equal rights issue, but one of military effectiveness. If the United States is to remain the world's most capable and most powerful military power, we need to have the best person in each job, regardless of their gender.

Authored by Jake Willens, 7 August 1996.

Reviewed by Daniel Smith, 29 January 1998.