The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and four servicewomen are suing the U.S. Defense Department to end the official ban on women from front-line units.
Action is long overdue: it's time to end the military policy barring women from combat.
Despite making up 14 percent of the nation's active military personnel, women have been officially excluded from most direct combat roles since 1994 when the Combat Exclusion Policy was passed. It states that service members are eligible for all positions, except women are excluded from ground combat.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has started loosening the grip on the exclusion to open up 14,500 combat positions for women with consideration for more, a step in the right direction for our service men and women. Those 14,500 positions are part of the 238,000 direct combat roles available, however. Service and combat should be about equal expectations and equal opportunities for all service members. The current exclusion is based on stereotypes and assumptions and leaves no room for advancement.
Ann Dunwoody and Janet Wolfenbarger are not nationally recognized names for most citizens, but they are the only two American women in history to become four-star generals. Two women in history. It's a rank that's incredibly difficult to attain without the infantry, armor or special operations experience.
But many women have this experience - they just don't receive credit for it. Modern warfare has put women in the line of fire whenever there is a shortage of troops, but because it is only a loophole and not official affiliation, they are not recognized. There's only so far you can go if you you're not getting credit for your work, and that will continue until the ban is reversed.
There is no argument for women not wanting to do this or not knowing what they are getting into. They know the consequences before they even put on the uniform. They choose to fight because they want to fight, and the ones that are going to go out into ground combat are the ones who want to be out in ground combat.
The list of reasons opponents have conjured to justify their opinions is lengthy: physical capabilities such as body composition, strength and aerobic capacity, the loss of morale and the possibility of romantic relationships.
Because what's more romantic than a first date in the combat zone?
One of the major criticisms for keeping women off the front line is the military's problem of sexual assault. The Pentagon estimates approximately 19,000 sexual assaults in our military last year (nearly 3,200 of those were actually reported). Part of that argument is the risk of women being captured for torture and sexual assault. But is separating the boys from the girls the solution to this problems, especially because those 19,000 assaults come while women have already barely been in major combat?
Are any of the potential scenarios of men crippling at the sight of an injured woman or the male members of the military losing all morale valid? The government cannot make that assumption. Chances have to be taken to find out. But there was recently a similar situation where the same scenarios were assumed, and contrary to the expectations of anti-gay senators and members of the Family Research Council, the country did not cave on itself when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed a little over a year ago. It was not a security risk, the military didn't fall apart and it didn't bring on the apocalypse. The only way anyone would know what the outcome would be, though, is if they took a chance and found out.
This hardly seems like a risk, but if it is, it's time for the government to create an even playing field and to take a chance on equality.
Email: editorial@ubspectrum.com
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
