![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Women In Combat, Again
Jan. 24th, 2013 09:51 amToday comes news that the Defense Department will be lifting the ban on women in combat. To a certain extent, this really shouldn't be news. My new Congressman, Tammy Duckworth, lost both legs in Iraq when an RPG round went off literally in her lap as she was piloting a Blackhawk helicopter. In the recent (and still ongoing) wars, we've had women get awards for valor during combat. In short, women in combat should be as newsworthy as dog bites man.
My understanding of the "ban" is not that women were banned from combat, but that they couldn't be assigned to "direct combat" units. So, for example, as discussed last night on The Rachel Maddow Show, a woman who had degrees in Arabic and Farsi couldn't be assigned to an infantry battalion as an intelligence officer. But, she could command a company oftargets fuel trucks rolling through the Iraqi countryside. That doesn't make sense to me, and didn't make sense to the Joint Chiefs either.
The generals of the 101st Chairborne Division are already screaming that this decision is The End Of American Military Might (tm). Their example is combat infantry. (Not that any of them ever saw a day in the infantry. Funny how one can be an expert in something without ever actually doing it.) To a certain extent, they are correct. You will see very few women in combat infantry units.
What they don't know, not having served, is that in the modern American military a fair number of men couldn't cut it in modern infantry units. Simply put, combat infantry is by far the most physically demanding job we have, and because we're running an all-volunteer force, we de-select people who can't cut it. This will not change, unless we get in some massive war where we need everybody we can get in infantry units. In that case, you'll see women in those units, and men that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
In short, the "women in combat" genie is out of the bottle, and she ain't going back in.
ETA: A woman with combat experience weighs in.
My understanding of the "ban" is not that women were banned from combat, but that they couldn't be assigned to "direct combat" units. So, for example, as discussed last night on The Rachel Maddow Show, a woman who had degrees in Arabic and Farsi couldn't be assigned to an infantry battalion as an intelligence officer. But, she could command a company of
The generals of the 101st Chairborne Division are already screaming that this decision is The End Of American Military Might (tm). Their example is combat infantry. (Not that any of them ever saw a day in the infantry. Funny how one can be an expert in something without ever actually doing it.) To a certain extent, they are correct. You will see very few women in combat infantry units.
What they don't know, not having served, is that in the modern American military a fair number of men couldn't cut it in modern infantry units. Simply put, combat infantry is by far the most physically demanding job we have, and because we're running an all-volunteer force, we de-select people who can't cut it. This will not change, unless we get in some massive war where we need everybody we can get in infantry units. In that case, you'll see women in those units, and men that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
In short, the "women in combat" genie is out of the bottle, and she ain't going back in.
ETA: A woman with combat experience weighs in.
