"The
Infantry closes with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order
to destroy or capture him or to repel his assault by fire, close
combat, and counterattack."
Leon Panetta's decision to open more Combat roles to women is a potentially disastrous action. In seventeen years of service, in the USMC, and the Army's National Guard, I have held only two Military Occupational Specialties, Combat Engineer and Infantry. Both of these are designated as Combat Arms, roles that until this week had been closed to women. I have served in three combat zones including Somalia and year long tours in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Each time, there were women serving alongside, executing their missions with outstanding professionalism. So why, am I against this change?
In the summer of
2001, just weeks before the September 11 attacks, my Army National
Guard Brigade completed a grueling rotation at the Army's Joint
Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk Louisiana. JRTC is
where the Army evaluates Infantry units. JRTC rotations are highly
realistic exercises which require soldiers to perform round the
clock under simulated real world conditions. In 2001 we spent eleven
days “In the Box!” participating in a simulated counter guerrilla
campaign on a notional Atlantic Island nation.
The night before our notional deployment, several soldiers were weighed with and without the equipment we would be carrying, the average load was 100-110 pounds. This included food, water, ammunition and helmet and equipment. It did not include the body armor that deployed soldiers wear today. We spent eleven days “humping” this load through the swamps and woods of central Louisiana in the summer heat and humidity. We walked an average of sixteen miles a day, and slept an average of four hours a night.
Each movement was a combat patrol. This required moving this 100 lb. load while maintaining awareness, holding one's weapon in a ready position. Some bodily functions were handled while on the move, more complicated ones during security halts with a battle buddy standing guard. There were no showers. It was more brutal then most of my real world deployment time. We were actually lucky, active duty units usually spend as many as 30 days in that scenario.
,
Most of the war in
Iraq and much of it in Afghanistan followed a different template.
Humvees, MRAPs, Strykers, and other vehicles tied troops to the road
net. Females have been able to engage in active combat operations,
and they have performed exceptionally. Women perform in multiple
roles that work closely with combat troops. Medics, Intel
specialists, Civil Affairs troops, Motor Vehicle operators all are
routinely attached to or members of units that may end up in contact
with the enemy. Women serve in the Military Police, where there is
at times an overlap with the Infantry mission, in that MPs can and
do, on occasion, directly assault enemy positions. At the end of the
day each and every US Military Service member male or female, needs
to be prepared to fight, when necessary.
Not every battle has been along a roadway however. In Afghanistan particularly our enemies have used mountainous terrain as their ally. When it comes to tackling al-Quaeda and Taliban forces in the mountains, our leaders rely on those Infantry soldiers, (Engineers, Scouts, Artillery Observers, and Special Forces as well) in those all male units that have been prepared to move hundred lb. loads up mountains that are two miles high.
During Operation Anaconda in 2002, a combination of Special Forces and Infantry battled al-Quaeda on and around Takur Ghar an 11,000 foot giant near the Afghan-Pakistani border. All male Infantry battalions from the 101st Air Assault and 10th Mountain Divisions climbed their way into battle. When battles like this begin, commanders of all male units are able to send them up that mountain without females attached in support roles. If those units included women, they could not be pulled out of their squads and fire teams without degrading unit integrity and combat effectiveness.
“So what?” Ask the feminist advocates for women in the Combat Arms. “If women can meet the standard they should be allowed in. Right?” Not so fast. Selection for Infantry and other Combat Arms does require passing standard Army (or Marines) Physical Fitness Tests, and trainers for those MOS's hold recruits headed that way to high standards, but... The tests don't measure one's endurance “humping” that rucksack day in and day out. Only training and time in a unit can measure that. Statistically speaking men can, and generally do develop into stronger and faster load bearers than women. Those men who simply cannot cut it in these Combat Arms units are generally transferred into other specialties.
A very close friend, and overseas battle
buddy confided in me. On active duty, in an Army Infantry Battalion,
he had served in a Scout/Sniper Platoon. When he was injured and
undergoing recovery from surgery his platoon sergeant hinted that he
should use steroids to build back his muscle mass. “If you can't
keep up, I can't use you!” While this is a reprehensible act,
contrary to the Army Values, it does indicate the pressure to perform
in those roles.
Dropping the
occasional male from a Combat Arms billet, and re-classing him
somewhere he can still serve, raises no political red flags. What
happens when women begin to crash and burn out of these units? Will
politicians who have never served in combat have the wisdom to leave
it alone. Will Generals who rely on Congressional support have the
integrity to uphold the standards? Not if recent history is any
guide. Then, will our politically correct, equality focused military
be capable of defending us? One can only hope.
