The following is an oped published in the Columbus Dispatch on February 9, 2013.
I respond to the three syndicated columns published (Gail
Collins, Jan 25; Linda Chavez, Jan 26; and Kathleen Parker, Jan 29) after
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s announcement that he was lifting the rule
barring women from serving in combat.
I have reviewed the biographies of the three columnists and
found no indication that any of them served in the military.
Nonetheless, each of them wrote unabashedly about the effect
women in combat would have on unit cohesion, readiness and combat
effectiveness.
This is the intellectual equivalent of prostitutes receiving
technical advice from nuns. It also
reflects a reality that most Americans view the military in general and the way
it is manned in particular through a lens of fear, apathy, ignorance and guilt.
American women have served in combat since the Civil War.
The fact that most women do not have the upper body strength or endurance of
most men is not a sufficient reason to deny all women the opportunity to serve
in combat, if they meet standards and volunteer.
Second, women’s career advancement in the military is
limited by the fact that they are excluded from the combat arms. Third, women serve with distinction in
combat-support and combat-service-support functions today and the pregnancy
red herring raised by the writers is not
an issue that precludes their service in these critical functions; there is no
reason to believe it will be more or less an issue in the combat arms.
Finally, women make up 14 percent of our military
today. In 1973 when the draft ended, it
was 2 percent.
Without the participation of women, the all-volunteer-force
concept is dead. Women deserve the equality of opportunity that comes from
eliminating the combat-exclusion rule.
Panetta’s announcement only moves the issue from the
theoretical to the operational. In the
meantime, we may be wise to let informed professionals frame the issues and
propose a way forward rather than have uninformed dilettantes add confusion and
hyperbole.
