The Effect of Integration on Ci Humint Collection Women in Combat

Women in Combat: The Effect of Integration on CI/HUMINT Collection

The Effect of Integration on CI/HUMINT Collection: Women in Combat

Key Words: #Combat # Integration # CI/HUMINT

The success of any counterinsurgency operation depends largely on the effectiveness and appropriateness of intelligence gathered. Human subjects are a crucial source of intelligence for counterinsurgency operations. Recently, the Pentagon announced its plan to open up all ground combat roles that had previously been closed to women by January 1st, 2016. Based on this announcement, this thesis seeks to establish how one specific area of counterinsurgency operations -- CI/HUMINT collection -- stands to benefit from the integration of women into the combat environment.

Women in Combat: The Effect of Integration on CI/HUMINT Collection

Introduction

The success of any counterinsurgency operation depends partly on the effectiveness of the human intelligence function driving the operation. Simply stated, intelligence is foreknowledge that assists military forces in organizing themselves for optimal employment (Giglio, 2013). Having accurate intelligence information increases the chances of combat success at all levels of operations - the strategic level, the tactical level and the operational level. On the tactical front, intelligence can provide forces with crucial insight on the performance envelopes of missiles, thereby aiding them in planning how to refine fighter tactics to out-maneuver the same. At the operational level, intelligence could help forces understand and engage enemy command elements or other operationally significant targets, thereby incapacitating rebel forces (Goh, Hao & Tay, 2008). Moreover, intelligence could assist forces make strategic deployment decisions such as how to hit the enemy's center of gravity, thereby weakening their will to fight back (Goh et al., 2008). Basically, therefore, intelligence is integral to mission success, influencing forces' activities significantly, right from operational planning and daily training to force restructuring (Giglio, 2013).

As the field of warfare has evolved, the human intelligence collection function has also grown to be more and more crucial for effective humanitarian assistance efforts and stable combat operations. That, however, seems to be more theoretical than practical, particularly in the context of the U.S. military -- our assignments are taking longer than usual, and our CI/HUMINT intelligence function seems far from perfect. This manifested clearly during the Iraqi war, when the intelligence community found itself relying on old and outdated information, and thereby landing conclusions that were largely inaccurate and misleading (Kerr, et al., 2008). Moreover, despite the fact that the intelligence community was able to gather accurate and crucial information on a range of issues including how the Iraqi forces would fight, how the war would develop over time, how tribal and ethnic factions in Iraq would react, how the war would impact oil markets, and how Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda, it lacked the means to explain how these issues were linked, particularly how each issue impacted the rest (Kerr et al., 2008). Towards this end, there was no comprehensive sense of understanding of the Iraqi target among camp members by the time of deployment.

An even greater problem was that once the war had begun, and with a male-saturated force, it was difficult to obtain more accurate intelligence owing to cultural provisions that bar Islamic women from interacting physically with men unrelated to them. This left the Iraqi female population an underdeveloped and underutilized source of human intelligence.

The Iraqi situation was not even the first of its kind -- back in the 1990s, the intelligence community faced a number of tests for intelligence including emerging threats from Iran and North Korea, the Yugoslavia break-up, and the First Gulf War, and still, its collection and analysis performance was far from perfect (Kerr et al., 2008). These instances only imply that there is need to urgently streamline our intelligence function both in the pre-war situation and during the war. We need to improve our intelligence gathering and analysis techniques on the ground to be able to put up effective combat operations and avoid placing an unnecessary burden on the already-overburdened taxpayer. The Pentagon recently announced that the military needed to open up all roles in frontline ground that had previously been closed to women by January 1st, 2016. This announcement has been a subject of massive debate, with some arguing that the integration of women into combat roles would ruin unit cohesion and consequently, military effectiveness. Based on this announcement, this thesis seeks to examine how the field of CI/HUMINT collection is deemed to benefit from such integration, and what needs to be done to ensure that the maximum benefits of integration are realized.

Background to the Study

Well, there is no doubt that women have served in the American military since long in history, typically playing the role of spies, cooks, nurses, or prostitutes for male combatants (Zabecki, 2008). However, their role in professional marine or soldier operations has been severely limited. One of the primary reasons for this is the perception that women are biologically meek and too 'soft' to handle the challenges of the battlefield. This perception gives rise to the belief that women may not be able to handle the challenges inherent in the field of war to the same degree as men (Zabecki, 2008). Other concerns that have been raised against the inclusion of women in traditional combat operations have to do with issues of unit cohesion and esprit-de-corps. These are all valid concerns and will be discussed in detail in the 'literature review' section of this thesis.

The transition of women into the combat function of the U.S. Army began in 1948, when President Truman signed the Women's Armed Services Integration Act into law. The Act essentially made it mandatory for women to constitute at least 2% of the total force. One controversial issue with the Act, however, is the fact that it excluded women from combat units. This spurred numerous amendments over the subsequent years, the most prominent being the authorization of female soldiers to act as pilots for combat aircrafts (McSally, 2007). The inclusion of women in more professional roles in the military increased rapidly with the Women Army Corps' elimination in the 1970s, and during Bill Clinton's reign as president (McSally, 2007).

The passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1992 marked a crucial step in the participation of women in the U.S. military (McSally, 2007). The Act repealed the rules that previously excluded women from taking part in combat operations, opening up opportunities for women to occupy a variety of specialties in the force, most of which could essentially be categorized as combat jobs. Although women could still not serve in the traditional combat-specific roles of artilleryman, tank operator or infantryman, they could potentially work in combat aviation roles and a number of other dangerous occupations (McSally, 2007). This was because of the same ideology that their biological givens make them unable to deal effectively with the primary challenges in the field of war. Two decades have lapsed since the passage of the Defense Authorization Act, yet both the Marine Corps and the Army still exclude women from combat roles in their forces. History has shown that women engaged in combat successfully in many historic wars including the Vietnam War, the Korean War, WW2, WW1, and the Civil War; and made immense contributions to the military's aerial operations during the Gulf War. The question of whether this is enough to have them included in frontline combat operations in the military continues to draw a lot of controversy, and is beyond the scope of this text.

Our focus is on determining how the CI/HUMINT function stands to benefit from the integration of women into ground combat roles. In other words, we are intent on determining how the integration of women in the combat environment could facilitate the process of gathering intelligence from human subjects. In the researcher's view, the exclusion of female soldiers from the combat environment creates some form of gap in the Marine Corps' intelligence collection function and impacts on the CI/HUMINT community's ability to support the Corps' counterinsurgency operations. The modern-day battlefield requires a stable and robust human intelligence collection function to aid counterinsurgency operations. The presence of female soldiers in combat could give CI/HUMINT collection operatives greater access to local populations and make information on insurgency operations more easily obtainable. Most contemporary studies have focused on explaining why the integration of men and women in the combat environment is, or is not a good idea. Very little literature exists on how specific areas of the military and its operations, such as the CI/HUMINT field, stand to benefit from such integration. Moreover, studies on how such integration ought to be executed so that military effectiveness is not compromised, and maximum benefits are realized are almost non-existent. These are the issues that the current study seeks to address. It comprises of two parts -- the first part seeks to determine how the CI/HUMINT field of the military stands to benefit from the inclusion of women in the combat environment, whereas the second part seeks to determine how such integration ought to take place in order for maximum benefits to be realized.

The research questions guiding the study have been stated below:

RQ1: how does the CI/HUMINT function stand to benefit from the inclusion of women in ground combat roles?

RQ1A: what biological qualities make women more effective CI/HUMINT gatherers than men?

RQ1B: what qualities make it a challenge from male soldiers to collect CI/HUMINT from local populations?

RQ2: How could the military integrate women into its ground combat units without compromising overall effectiveness?

RQ2A: What Issues have been raised about the integration of women into combat roles?

RQ2B: What steps need to be taken to address the identified issues and ensure that the full benefits of integration are realized?

Rationale of Study

The current study is based on the argument that having female soldiers in the field of war during combat operations would place the force in a better position to obtain human intelligence, particularly from the female faction of the population. Most studies that have previously been conducted in this area of study have focused on the harms or benefits in general that could accrue from the inclusion of women in combat roles in the military. There, however, are still huge knowledge gaps in the question of how the CI/HUMINT collection field specifically stands to be affected by such inclusion. There are even bigger knowledge gaps in relation to how such integration ought to be conducted in order for its full benefits to be realized. The few studies that have delved into this area of knowledge have focused on the European context, leaving a lot to be desired in the American context. The most probable reason why the American context has remained largely understudied is because women are still largely underrepresented in combat roles in the U.S. military, and this makes America a less viable area of study. My proposed study, therefore, complements existing studies and provides crucial insight to combat leaders on how their CI/HUMINT fields, and the force in general stands to benefit from the inclusion of women in the field of war. Its findings will go a long way in streamlining the intelligence function in the military, and thereby minimizing the risk of mission failure as was the case in Iraq. The study is particularly relevant to the ongoing global war on terrorism. Research has shown that having a male-saturated force was one of the core reasons for the failed mission in Iraq as it made it almost impossible for operatives to collect human intelligence on insurgents' operations from the female population. If the war on terrorism is to be won, combat leaders will need to identify ways of making human intelligence more obtainable from local populations; this study demonstrates that allowing women in the field of war is one way to achieve that.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of the proposed study is to examine how the human intelligence function of the military stands to benefit from the inclusion of women in the field of war. Studies have managed to show that inaccuracies and flaws in intelligence collection and analysis is to blame for combat missions failing to meet expectations or taking longer than usual (Reese, 2008; Kerr et al., 2008). Any piece of insight that could help in streamlining intelligence products would, therefore, be welcome, at least for the sake of the taxpayer. The primary reason behind my research is to document how women were used to gather human intelligence historically, and the potential benefits that the CI/HUMINT function of the military could reap from the inclusion of women in the combat environment. Data to be used in the study will be conducted through qualitative techniques, particularly document review. Autobiographies of famous female agents who worked as spies during WW1, WW2, the Cold War, and most recently, the Iraqi war as presented in military resources and peer-reviewed journals will be reviewed to identify the specific qualities that made women effective at gathering human intelligence without arousing the suspicion of their masters. One of the main challenges that is likely to be encountered in the conduction of the research is difficulty in ascertaining biases in selected sources. Various military sources and government reports on the Iraqi war will also be reviewed to help the researcher identify the specific challenges faced my male soldiers in HUMINT collection, particularly the challenges faced during the Iraqi war. Relevant peer-reviewed and military journals will also be reviewed to identify the potential issues that could result from the inclusion of female soldiers in the field of war, and how these could be addressed to ensure that the full benefits of integration are realized. The study findings are expected to go a long way in streamlining the intelligence activities of the U.S. military, particularly in the war against terrorism.

Assumptions

This research is based on two key assumptions. First, a military reflects the values of the greater society within which it is based, which basically means that the U.S. Armed Forces are not above the American laws and legal system; rather, they must incorporate these laws into both practice and policy. The second assumption guiding the study is that sexual harassment is a negative force; we assume that this is a widely affected fact in the military, and all possible measures will be taken to prevent it and ensure that those found culpable are punished. Throughout this thesis, the terms military effectiveness and combat effectiveness will be used interchangeably, and will be taken to mean the same thing.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

A lot of literature has been written about the inclusion and participation of women in the U.S. military. More specifically, the literature has focused on the fundamental role played by women in combat and combat-related jobs. As the debate about the future of women in combat continues to evolve, researchers are increasingly turning their attention to studying the question of women's abilities to handle the physical difficulties and emotional challenges of the battlefield. Today, women remain severely underrepresented in combat roles, with most of them serving in a support role capacity to support their male counterparts in combat roles in the battlefield. Opinions on whether women are better off serving in these support roles or being allowed to serve in frontline roles in the battlefield like their male counterparts differ widely from researcher to researcher -- one faction believes that women ought may not perform effectively in frontline combat roles because of their nurturing and caring nature; others, however, believe that female soldiers undergo the same kind of training as their male counterparts and are just as prepared for the challenges of the battlefield. A bulk of the existing literature has focused on this aspect; as a matter of fact numerous researchers are still conducting studies to determine the suitability of female soldiers for frontline combat roles. Unfortunately, this has created huge knowledge gaps in relation to how specific areas of the military, particularly that of CI/HUMINT collection stand to be affected by the integration of women into the combat environment.

Currently, women remain largely underrepresented in ground combat roles in the U.S. military. The Pentagon's recent announcement that all ground combat roles that were previously closed to women be opened to them by January 1st, 2016 has spurred a lot of controversy, with some arguing that such a move would ruin unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. This review is divided into four distinct sections. The first section reviews literature touching on the nature of war. It reviews the various aspects and elements that characterize the field of war, and the perceptions/opinions that Americans hold about the integration of women into ground combat roles. The second section reviews literature on the potential issues that could result from the integration of women into the combat environment. It covers issues of unit cohesiveness, combat effectiveness, the personal health of deployed females, and their personal privacy and security as they serve in a male-dominated environment. The third section focuses on the benefits of having female soldiers in the battlefield, particularly in the ongoing war on terrorism whereas the final section reviews literature on the means of integrating women into ground combat roles without ruining unit cohesion and military effectiveness; that is how the issues identified in section three can be addressed to ensure that the maximum benefits of integration are realized.

The Nature of War

Researchers contend that many people have most likely commented on the question of whether or not women ought to be allowed to accompany their male counterparts to war as frontline soldiers; it is possible that a majority of these, however, do not even understand the general nature and context of war. Understanding the nature of war, and how it occurs is crucial to developing an effective answer to the question of whether or not women ought to be allowed into the field of war. Alderman (1992) provides a succinct analysis of the nature of war. He posits that in order to fully understand the nature of war, one needs to break down the process of war into three dimensions: the biological element of war, the psychological element of war, and the algebraic element of war (Alderman, 1992). The algebraic element covers the physical elements of war, that is the weather, the material, the terrain, and so on (Alderman, 1992). The biological element covers the human aspects of war, whereas the psychological element covers the conceptual framework that links the biological and algebraic elements (Alderman, 1992). These three elements have over the years been contemporized and reorganized into the physical domain of war, the cybernetic domain of war, and the moral domain of war (Alderman, 1992).

According to Dr. James Schneider, former Military Science professor at the U.S. Army's School of Military studies, the physical domain encompasses the material forces that are present during war, including the logistical, geographic and technological factors that shape the way war is fought (Alderman, 1992). The technological aspect describes the weapon systems and equipment quantities and limitations. The methods and means of sustaining troops during war area covered under the logistical element, whereas the weather and terrain describe the geographical or environmental element (Alderman, 1992). Together, these are described as the fixed, or the physical conditions of war (Alderman, 1992).

The cybernetic domain covers the communication, control, command and organizational systems within a unit during war. The organizational system provides the capability and functionality needed to realize specific tasks. The commands function provides purpose to the unit by exercising leadership and giving directions. Communication systems provide conduits for feedback and information exchange; and finally, control systems give feedback to the command function as a way of ensuring that operations do not deviate from command goals (Alderman, 1992). Technological systems support the cybernetic domain, which basically means that the "cybernetic domain links the physical conditions with the human dimensions of war" (Alderman, 1992, p. 5).

Finally, there is the moral dimension of war -- this is an integration of the social, psychological and physiological factors that affect both units and individuals. The social forces include aspects like morale, group bonding, discipline and commitment, whereas the psychological factors include attitude, values, fear, courage, leadership and motivation (Alderman, 1992). Individual anatomical capabilities such as endurance and strength form part of the physiological domain (Alderman, 1992). The combination of these three elements forms the human dimension, which is still the most dominant force during war.

Combat provides the arena for the three domains above to interact. Its aim is to defeat and completely destroy the enemy. The destruction makes use of the physical aspects, whereas the defeat makes use of the moral aspect, that is the fear that the force instills in the enemy (Alderman, 1992). This makes the combat process both physical and moral -- the moral aspect eliminates the will to fight, and the physical, the ability to fight (Alderman, 1992). The combat process occurs along a continuum, beginning in the physical domain with the destruction of materials and communication systems, thereby leading to casualties (Alderman, 1992). The physical destruction of cybernetic elements causes disorganization, which opens up opportunities for moral destruction. Moral destruction, coupled with physical destruction causes uncertainty and fear, which attack individual soldiers' wills and destroy the physical and psychological bonds between them and other members of their crew (Alderman, 1992). These broken bonds in the end cause the force to disintegrate, unless the individual members have the will, strength and cohesion to resist the forces of destruction (Alderman, 1992). This analysis suggests that the question that we should be asking ourselves as the debate on integration progresses is whether women have the strength and capacity to navigate the complex nature of combat, and whether their integration in any way affects the military's ability to do so.

Public Perceptions about the Integration of Women in Ground Combat Roles

With the ongoing debate on whether or not women ought to be allowed in frontline combat roles, researchers have increasingly sought to study how the American society perceives and understands women's roles in the military. Brown (2012) was able to demonstrate that the way society perceives the role of women is a crucial determinant of how women will be perceived and treated in military service, particularly when serving in ground combat roles.

In a bid to determine how society understood the place and role of women in the military, Stachowitsch (2013) examined a range of relevant newspaper articles in the Washington Post and the New York Times written between 1990 and 2010. He categorized the opinions and perceptions presented therein into four distinct eras: i) 1990-1994 (the first significant military intervention since the all-volunteer force's inception; ii) 1995-1999 (when the military was downsizing, but women's participation was increasing significantly); iii) 2000-2005 (characterized by the initiation of the war on terrorism); and iv) 2005-2010 (characterized by the reformation of military gender policies). The researcher sought to identify positive and negative statements put forth by media articles about women in service and the impact of integration on military effectiveness. The study established that the positive statements about integration and women in combat among members of the general public exceeded negative ones by almost 69% (Stachowitsch, 2013). Negative references only outweighed positive ones in the time period between 1995 and 1999, perhaps because the concepts of integration and women in service were still relatively new (Stachowitsch, 2013).

These findings were supported by another study Young and Nauta (2013), which sought to examine the attitudes that military-affiliated college students (those currently in Reserve Officers' Training Corps, ROTC) held towards women in combat, and how these differed from those held by college students in civilian colleges. 254 students from civilian colleges were recruited to participate compared to 62 military-affiliated students (Young & Nauta, 2013). The study established that military-affiliated students held more negative attitudes towards women in combat than their counterparts in civilian colleges, suggesting that whereas the general public seems to finds no fault with women being integrated into combat roles, the military community seems overtly opposed to the idea. This explains the high incidences of bullying and workplace harassment against women in military camps, particularly in combat units (Koeszegi et al., 2014). It also explains the low enlistment rates of female soldiers, and the small number of women that would like to serve in combat roles in the military - a study seeking to determine the propensity (by gender) to enlist in combat roles in the military found that only 8.1% of the women interviewed would like to work in the military (Segal et al., 1998). Most of the women unwilling to work in combat roles cited limited opportunities, parental concerns and the masculine norms of the military as the reasons for their negative attitudes towards the institution (Segal et al., 1998).

These studies perfectly demonstrate that the general public supports the participation of women in the military and their integration into combat roles more than military-affiliated personnel; but even so, not many women seem interested in taking up positions in the military, or rather, most of them, do not believe that they stand any chances of getting selected to serve in military roles. This is particularly because they believe opportunities are limited, or that the military, with military stakeholders to devise ways of addressing these concerns so that qualified women stand better chances of acquiring opportunities in combat.

Women in Combat

Military Operational Concerns Surrounding the Integration of Women into Combat Roles

Opening up opportunities for women in CI/HUMINT collection roles basically means opening up opportunities for them in frontline combat because it is only when they are in combat in the field of battle that they will be able to interact with, and collect information from locals. Researchers have given conflicting views on whether this ought to happen. The views that have been advanced so far have focused on two different aspects -- the effect of such inclusion on unit cohesion and the effect on mission effectiveness.

Effect on Unit Cohesion

Unit cohesion, from a military perspective, refers to the bonding together of members of a unit in such a way as to sustain their commitment to mission accomplishment, to the unit and to each other (MacCoun & Hix, 2000). It comprises of two different aspects -- task cohesion and social cohesion. Task cohesion is the bonding together of members in such a way as to achieve a goal requiring the collective effort of all members of the unit (MacCoun & Hix, 2000). Social cohesion, on the other hand, refers to "the extent to which group members like each other, prefer to spend their social time together ... and feel emotionally close to one another" (MacCoun & Hix, 2000). A unit with high task and social cohesion is said to be high in overall unit cohesion (MacCoun & Hix, 2000). Multiple studies have shown a strong, positive correlation between unit cohesiveness and performance (MacCoun & Hix, 1993; Beal et al., 2003; Oliver et al., 1999). In their 1993 study, MacCoun and Hix found cohesion to be the strongest determinant of performance in combat operations. This view was supported by Beal and his colleagues (2003), who additionally found the cohesion-performance link to be stronger when the task to be accomplished required high degrees of coordination among members.

Whilst there seems to be some form of consensus on how unit cohesion impacts on overall performance, researchers appear to be split on how the inclusion an increased participation of women in frontline roles in the battlefield would affect unit cohesion. One faction believes that the integration of women in ground combat roles would harm unit cohesion; the other, however, believes that such inclusion would have no effect on unit cohesion as long as the right training is advanced.

In his article titled, 'The Truth about Women in Combat,' Frum (2013) opines that integrating women into ground combat roles would encourage sexual relationships, thereby ruining unit cohesion and consequently, combat readiness. He points out that as expected, the number of women will be way less than that of men, causing the band of brothers to begin competing among themselves for the few available women; in the end, social cohesion within the team is ruined (Frum, 2013). His view is supported by Eden (2013), who points out in her article, 'The Problems of Women in Combat -- From a Female Combat Vet', that the Navy perfectly demonstrated this when they began allowing female soldiers on ship -- jealousy fomented and perceptions of favoritism began to emerge; relationships went sour, sexual assaults became prominent and soldiers lost faith in their colleagues, some even beginning to fear them. In the end, there was disunity among team members and unit cohesion suffered.

Frum (2013) further expresses that sexual tensions and relations are not the only issues that could ruin unit cohesion if women are integrated into ground combat roles -- there also is the issue of the place of the woman in combat. We obviously could expect female officers to begin to ascend to higher leadership levels once they are accorded opportunities to join ground combat. The problem, however, is that owing to reasons wired into the male brain, men may not readily accept female leadership (Frum, 2013). One possible reason for this reluctance could be that men feel that the women are not as good as they are in battle; they do not have the physical strength to drive combat operations, or they are just accorded such positions on a silver platter in the name of achieving fairness and equality (Frum, 2013). Whatever the reason, male soldiers are likely to be reluctant to take orders from female leaders when the shooting starts; and this could be damaging to both task and social cohesion.

A similar view is held by Major M. I. Alderman -- in his monograph titled, 'Women in Direct Combat: What is the Price for Equality?' Alderman (1992) examines three aspects of unit cohesion as they relate to combat -- primary group bonding, system bonding and organizational bonding. He defines primary group bonding as the bond that develops between individuals working in a unit, and which forms the basis of unit morale and teamwork; system bonding as the integration of man and weapons to form an effective system; and organizational bonding as the ability of the organization to function as a team (Alderman, 1992). He posits that the disintegration of any of these three elements would result in a degradation of unit cohesion and consequently, reduced combat effectiveness (Alderman, 1992). He then goes on to argue that women are physically and psychologically different from men; they do not have sufficient upper body strength to carry heavy weapons or sufficient ammunition, and this impedes on system bonding (Alderman, 1992). Moreover, male soldiers could begin to feel that women are being favored by being given positions in combat even though they are physically and emotionally weaker than men (Alderman, 1992). This, the researcher points out, could lead to the development of resentment, which could then damage the unit's primary group bonding (Alderman, 1992). One major limitation of this study is that it fails to recognize the fact that some men may not reach the physical standards required for combat, yet some women could; nonetheless, the researcher lands the conclusion that the integration of women into ground combat roles would reduce unit cohesion and overall combat effectiveness (Alderman, 1992).

Proponents of integration have, however, come out to strongly dispute these ideologies. Goldstein (2001), for instance, conducted a study to determine whether there were any differences in cohesion levels between male-only combat teams and mixed-gender groups. He concluded that bonding and cohesion were not affected in the latter, and that male and female soldiers can work effectively together, especially when the latter a not a novelty in the group. These findings were replicated by Harrell and Miller (1997), who found that gender differences alone had no significant effect on unit cohesion; the integration of females, therefore, would have no significant effect on morale, readiness and overall cohesion as long as the unit had the right leadership and members remained committed to the task at hand. Egnell (2014) supports this view, expressing that although sexual relations are inevitable whenever men and women are kept in close contact for prolonged periods, effective unit leadership could go a long way to ensure that group cohesion is not ruined as a result. In his view, therefore, unit cohesion is a function of leadership and cohesion more than it is one of team composition (Egnell, 2014).

Two examples from history that perfectly demonstrate the contribution of leadership and overall commitment to unit cohesion are the U.S. 106th Infantry division during the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, and the German SS Totenkopfdivision (SSTK) during the Battle of Lushno in 1941. The former disintegrated almost without a fight; but the SSTK, though facing almost certain defeat, ended up bloodied, but never broke. The difference between the two teams, as Alderman (1992) points out, was their level of cohesion.

In September, 1941, Lushno became the center for a massive counter-offensive by the Soviet Union (Alderman, 1992). The Soviet had three powerful divisions, and SSTK was forced to withstand the full force of all the three despite being ill-equipped and ill-prepared for the counter-offensive (Alderman, 1992). SSTK seemed to be headed for an almost certain defeat as its subordinate battalions suffered widespread casualties, leaving a troop strength of only 150 men to fight the Soviet in the Village of Lushno (Alderman, 1992). The 150 remaining men reorganized themselves and re-strategized, eventually managing to regain lost ground, defeat the Soviet and recover the Village units. The high cohesion produced anti-tank crews that continued to fire even when overwhelmed, infantry squads that continued to attack with satchel charges and grenades even when overrun, and battalions that continued to counterattack successfully even after they had taken 80% casualties (Alderman, 1992). The SSTK, as Alderman (1992) points out, remained combat effective because the unit's leadership was able to create and maintain unit cohesion in such a way that it was able to resist the destruction process.

The 106th Infantry division during the Battle of the Bulge was, however, the complete opposite. On the morning of 16th December 1944, three German divisions attacked the U. S' 106th Infantry Division (the Golden Lions) in Ardennes (Alderman, 1992). Differently from the SSTK, however, the Golden Lions shattered like glass -- describing his division's disintegration, Colonel Dupuy of the Golden Lions made use of such words as flamed, panic, sheer, panic, unreasoning panic (Alderman, 1992). The Golden Lions suffered their worst defeat in the European theater; a defeat that was attributed to a variety of reasons including bad weather, poor intelligence and poor tactical disposition (Alderman, 1992). The primary cause of the defeat, however, as (Alderman, 1992) points out was insufficient unit cohesion -- the lack of organizational, system, and primary group bonding was evidenced by units fleeing before they had even seen the enemy, drivers fleeing with artillery pieces and tanks without other crew members, and a massive number of avoidable foot injuries (Alderman, 1992). The Golden Lions' leadership, unlike that of the SSTK was unable to create unit cohesion within his division that could sufficiently resist the destruction process (Alderman, 1992). As a consequence, there was massive disintegration, characterized by over 50% casualties, the total casualty level being estimated at 7,000 missing or dead (Alderman, 1992). These two illustrations perfectly support the view that unit cohesion is a function of leadership more than it is of team composition (Egnell, 2014)

In a separate study, Bartone and his colleagues (2002) expressed that besides leadership, training and competence were also key to ensuring unit cohesion in gender-mixed teams. They studied the factors influencing team cohesion among Norwegian officer Cadets, and found that previous familiarity between team members and shared experience of stressful exercise together had a strong effect on group cohesion (Bartone et al., 2002). The researchers thus concluded that a leader could increase their team's overall cohesion by providing opportunities for shared experiences and offering mixed gender training (Bartone et al., 2002).

Rosen and his colleagues (2003) argue that in fact, the integration of women in ground combat roles could help to build unit cohesion. Their findings are based on the culture of hyper masculinity (HM) in military units. They argue that when males bond together in all-males units, they develop HM, which is manifested in stereotypic and exaggerated masculine actions and attributes, which could be detrimental to team unity and overall cohesiveness. Including women in such teams helps to break down this culture of HM, and its negative consequences (Rosen et al., 2003). In their study seeking to compare the levels of HM in male-only teams versus gender-mixed teams, the authors found male-only units to have higher levels of HM than gender-mixed teams (Rosen et al., 2003). They concluded that this happens because in gender-mixed teams, the culture of HM is replaced with that of 'ungendered professionalism', which is the bond that holds the team members together (Rosen et al., 2003).

Elsewhere, Feitz and Nagel, in their 2008 study seeking to determine whether gender integration had any effect on the morale, cohesion and readiness of the U.S. Army, found that gender integration as an independent had a very negligible effect on the aforementioned factors. The authors supported Egnell's (2014) findings that cohesion and morale are a function of training and leadership more than they are of unit composition. The results showed that the effects of gender integration were in fact almost invisible in units with high task cohesion. The report, therefore, concluded that the integration of women into ground combat units did not affect cohesion negatively; if anything it resulted in even more cohesion (Feitz & Nagel, 2008). The report also concluded that gender integration did not have an effect on team morale, unless if it was accompanied by bullying or sexual assault (Feitz & Nagel, 2008).

Also holding a similar view about the whole idea of gender integration is Brower (1996). In his 1996 essay in the Armed Forces Journal, Brower explains that a woman can be as tough as any man in combat as long as they are properly trained. He, therefore, opines that the reasons that the military currently uses to exclude women from frontline combat are invalid and lacking of basis (Brower, 1996). He uses two different studies to support his argument. The first was a 1995 study by the UK Ministry of Defense, which concluded that "women can be built up to the same levels of fitness as men of the same size and build" (Brower, 1996, p. 13). The second study was one conducted on trainees by the U.S. military in 1995 -- the training involved civilian women, and was based on a demanding build-up of physical exercises and physical endurance tests (Brower, 1996). Participants recorded a dramatic improvement in physical ability, leading the researchers to conclude that women were just as physically capable as their male counterparts if they receive the right training and guidance (Brower, 1996). Brower's (1996) key point is that women in the U.S. military fail to get the proper experience and credentials for top leadership positions primarily because they have been excluded from combat roles. He suggests that since it has already been shown even by studies by military officials themselves that women are just as physically capable as men, it is only fair that they (women) are accorded opportunities to compete for top jobs in the military with their male counterparts (Brower, 1996). Basically, therefore, Brower's (1996) essay supports the findings of Bartone and his colleagues (2002) that training and competence, and not unit composition are the keys to an effective military.

In her essay titled, 'Women at Arms: The Combat Controversy', Francine D'Amico (1996) presents the argument that excluding women from combat roles is irrelevant since women are already proven combatants. She argues that in the modern-day battlefield, the line between combat and combat-related jobs has become increasingly blurred as weapon ranges and troop mobility have increased substantially (D'Amico, 1996). Her essay suggests that the whole idea of excluding women from the combat environment only places them at a disadvantage of not being able to occupy the same employment positions as their male counterparts (D'Amico, 1996). The author gives a step-by-step counterargument to the various issues and concerns raised by those opposed to the idea of integration. She categorizes the various issues that have been raised by critics into four -- social-political, military-strategic, psychological and physiological -- and then systematically provides counterarguments against each one. She starts off with the physiological issues, noting that the differences in men and women's physical abilities are not a valid point of concern because empirical evidence has well indicated that some women meet the physical standards required of combat roles whereas some men do not (D'Amico, 1996). She also supports the argument put forth by several other researchers that physical strength is fast losing relevance in the modern-day battlefield because of technology's effect of reducing weight and increasing weapon ranges (D'Amico, 1996). In response to the psychological objections, the author counters by pointing out that the inclusion of aggressive women in combat units could reduce the hyper masculinity level within the team and would consequently lower the risk of conflict arising (D'Amico, 1996). The essay suggests that the military-strategic objections raised by critics of integration are not only irrelevant, but also based purely on male bias. In her view, "the problem is not with women in combat, but with men's attitudes towards women in combat" (D'Amico, 1996, p. 11). She gives the same argument against the socio-political objections to integration, arguing that these are outdated and geared at perpetuating the traditional oppression of women in the military (D'Amico, 1996). Basically, therefore, D'Amico's (1996) essay advocates for the integration of women in ground combat roles on grounds that it fosters unit cohesion and minimizes the risk of conflict. Well, even though her argument appears emotive in several instances, it applies perfectly to the context of the U.S. military.

Other researchers have moved away from completely from the issue of cohesiveness, choosing instead to compared the integration of women in ground combat roles with the business sphere -- business literature is in consensus that gender integration in the workplace has a positive impact on productivity and profit generation (Egnell, 2014). It is possible, therefore, that integrating men and women in ground combat roles would boost the military's overall performance. This argument, however, remains highly debatable, particularly because of the differences that exist between military and civilian lives.

Effect on Combat Effectiveness

Besides unit cohesion, it is believed that the integration of women in ground combat roles would have an effect on combat effectiveness. Combat effectiveness can be defined simply as the ability of a military force to realize its intended objective (Harrell & Miller, 2997). Frum (2013) believes that male soldiers will most likely not take lightly the thought of being led by, and receiving shooting orders from a female leader. Moreover, military leadership calls for the authoritarian style -- female leaders tend to be accepted more if they exhibit maternal, nurturing, and warm leadership; authoritarian leadership, however, seems to get them negatively evaluated and perceived as inefficient. These perceptions and negative feelings begin to dictate the behavior of subordinates, leading to less commitment and consequently, combat ineffectiveness. Frum (2013) points out that one may label men's unwillingness to follow women's orders in the battlefield as unfair, but what happens is that:

The measure of a leader lies not in the leader's behavior, but in the behavior of his subordinates. If potential followers will not follow a leader for whatever reason, the leader cannot be effective. Whether blame is assigned to the failed follower or the failed leader is immaterial. If the mission is not being accomplished, the unit is ineffective (Frum, 2013, n.pag)

A second concern surrounding the integration of women into ground combat roles is that such integration could jeopardize male soldiers' abilities to 'put the mission before the man' (Christopher, n.d.). In his article titled, 'Review of Women in Close Combat Roles,' Sayle (2014) wonders whether it would be possible for a male soldier who sees a female colleague wounded to 'put the mission before the man', or would he fly into a rage and go after her to offer his protection. It is in men's nature to be protective of women, and it may be unreasonable to assume that a male soldier would put the 'mission before the man' in such circumstances (Christopher, n.d.).

Another concern that has been raised by critics of integration touches on how women will be distributed across the unit, and how they will be accorded leadership positions without male soldiers, who have been in combat longer, perceiving them as having being given the same on a silver platter. According to Burton (1998), the decision on how to distribute women across the division is a tough one and could have a significant effect on combat effectiveness. He argues that commanders are faced with two options -- to either concentrate women in one subunit or to distribute them across the division as a whole (Burton, 1998). Each of these options has its share of advantages and disadvantages. If they decide to concentrate the women in one subunit, a number of problems could result. First, the current combat experience base, which is composed primarily of males, will not be readily available for training; and secondly, such a move would only perpetuate the problem of inequity and perceived differences that we are currently experiencing (Burton, 1998). However, such a move would have the benefit of ensuring that women can readily obtain support from each other, and will not feel isolated in the male-dominated environment that they will be serving in.

Having women distributed across the unit, on the other hand, has its own benefits and costs. From a costs perspective, the move would cause a feeling of isolation among women, particularly if they have to serve as the only woman in an entire platoon or section (Burton, 1998). Moreover, the effect of small group female bonding may be lacking and the effects of integration, therefore, may be less visible (Burton, 1998). In terms of benefits, however, this strategy would present women with the best possible opportunities for equity and fairness and would allow them to learn from their more experienced counterparts (Burton, 1998). Ultimately, the level of social cohesion within the team would improve (Burton, 1998). The author maintains that this question of placement places commanders in a dilemma whose ends-result (if not properly considered) could be detrimental to combat effectiveness, but one that commanders would not have to be in if we were not considering the idea of integration in the first place.

Researchers have also argued that women are likely to impede on combat effectiveness with their mothering instincts (Christopher, n.d.). Men and women differ both physically and psychologically; in fact, the primary reason why women have traditionally been left out of ground combat roles is because men believe that they (women) lack the emotional strength to withstand the challenges of the battlefield (Christopher, n.d.). It is widely believed that women's mothering characteristic would interfere with their ability to place the mission before the men, and to make tough life and death decisions in the battlefield (Christopher, n.d.). Sayle (2014) questions whether men can trust women to assist them when they are wounded and to pull the trigger when they are required to.

In his article, Frum (2013) makes reference to a 2010 CBS news article, where two female truck drivers reportedly refused, tearfully, to transport troops to a fighting scene, arguing that they were exhausted from driving under fire for long hours following an invasion that lasted nine hours. It became apparent later that the women's claims that they had been driving under fire for extensive periods were in fact not true - they had only been under fire for one hour, and had spent the other eight hours awaiting their next mission in the truck (Frum, 2013). An investigation by the Army into the incident supported the women's claims, but the male soldiers at the scene were almost convinced that the women were not tired, but afraid (Frum, 2013). Incidences such as these, Frum (2013) points out, are likely to impede on the unit's effectiveness.

This argument has, however, come under serious criticism from proponents of women's integration into ground combat roles. In his article, Christopher (n.d.) points out that no scientific evidence has been produced to prove that women are in their very nature, nurturing and caring, especially when the association is beyond that which they share with their families. For instance, there is no scientific proof that women are generally more nurturing or protective than men in the workplace; as such, one could conclude that women's mothering nature is dependent on the social circumstances at a particular time (Christopher, n.d). Moreover, there is a sufficient number of real-life cases demonstrating that women are just as capable as their male counterparts to kill their enemy in combat. A perfect example, as Sayle (2014) points out is that of Lyudmila Pavlichenko, the female Soviet sniper during WWII who killed 309 people, 36 of whom were German snipers. Another excellent example is that of Charlotte Madison, the first ever AAC pilot to expend her ammunition, and call 'Winchester' from a combat sortie -- she mentioned during an interview that she had killed more people than Jack the Ripper, Myra Hindley, Harold Shipman, and all other serial killers put together (Sayle, 2014).

Another common argument against the integration of women into ground combat is that they lack the physical strength to effectively execute the demands of the battlefield, and will derail mission completion, especially if they have to be flown back home before mission completion or have to be kept out of the battlefield to receive medical care. Research has shown that women possess less body strength and less muscle mass, and are more likely to break bones during combat missions (Sayle, 204; Frum, 2013). A 2012 study by the U.S. Army found that women sustained stress fractures at a rate four times higher than that of their male counterparts (Sayle, 2014). These findings were replicated by another study by the Israeli Defense Force, which found female recruits to sustain substantially higher rates of fractures than their male counterparts (Sayle, 2014). Statistics in regard to eye injuries have, however, painted a less clear picture. A study by Thompson (2013) showed that military men report twice as many eye injuries as their female counterparts in combat operations. Experts believe the low injury rates for military women are due to the fact that women are biologically more nurturing, and their basic form of nurturing, motherhood, causes them to incur such injuries less often. Despite this, however, Thompson (2013) still found that women were hospitalized at a rate 30% higher than that of males, even after delivery hospitalizations and pregnancy were expunged from the equation. Figure 2 below provides a glimpse of the comparison data between male and female soldiers' medical evacuations in the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars.

Figure 2: Proportions of Medical Evacuations, by Major Categories of Illness/Injury be Gender, U.S. Armed Forces, January 2001 to December 2011

(Source: Thompson, 2013, n.pag)

This data raises an additional concern that women are costlier to maintain in the field of war than their male counterparts; increasing their participation in ground combat roles will most likely pull up mission costs for the taxpayer (Thompson, 2013).

Other researchers have, however, come out strongly to counter the ideology that the integration of women in combat roles would adversely affect combat effectiveness. Harries-Jenkins (2002), for instance, found no direct evidence to prove that such integration would impact negatively on combat effectiveness. He posits that women have served in combat roles during the Persian Gulf War and even in the recent war in Iraq; they were taken prisoner, wounded and killed, just like their male counterparts, yet there is no indication that they affected the military's overall level of effectiveness (Harries-Jenkins, 2002). If anything, women often produced a calming influence in camps and among locals in times when tension was high (Harries-Jenkins, 2002). A similar view is held by Feitz and Nagel (2008), who expressed that America deployed female soldiers in various combat-related jobs (armored drivers, pilots, security work and other support roles), yet there is no proof that such inclusion undermined the military's mission and culture (Feitz & Nagel, 2008).

It is obvious then that literature on how integration would affect military effectiveness is rich and varied. Most arguments that have been put forth against integration center on the physical and psychological differences between men and women. Many argue that women have less physical strength than men and ought not to be employed in areas requiring a lot of physical strength. This argument has, however, been countered on grounds that not all men could meet the physical fitness standards required of combat roles, yet some women could. A large number of researchers have also argued that women do not have the emotional/psychological ability to deal with the challenges of the battlefield owing to their natural mothering instincts. Proponents of integration have, however, critiqued this argument on grounds that there is no scientific evidence proving that the 'mothering' nature of women extends beyond their familial associations; for instance, there is no proof that women are more nurturing than men in the workplace. What comes out quite clearly though is that the maximum benefits of integration could be realized if the same is accompanied by effective leadership and if the right steps are taken to change the gender perceptions held by military personnel about women's individual abilities.

Social Concerns Surrounding Integration

Besides focusing on concerns about military performance associated with the integration of women into ground combat roles, a large number of researchers have also been keen to study the possible social and health concerns that could result from such integration. The subsequent sections of this review examine the specific arguments that have been raised in this regard.

Personal Health Issues Surrounding the Integration of Women in Combat

One aspect of military effectiveness is being ready to be deployed anywhere in the world at any time and on short notice (Feitz & Nagel, 2008). Being ready incorporates a variety of elements, one of the main ones being the state of health that one is in and the availability of healthcare upon deployment. In addition to the questions of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness, researchers have raised concern about the personal health of women in military units. The most common of these concerns have touched on the mental health of women (Hoglund & Schwartz, 2014) and their reproductive health (Yanovich & Moran, 2011; Manski et al., 2014).

In their study, Manski and his colleagues (2014) conducted interviews on 22 women serving in the military to obtain insight about their reproductive health experiences during their period of deployment. Participants identified multiple barriers towards receiving proper care in the battlefield including the following: a general stigma associated with seeking out care facilities, a lack of female care providers, and confidentiality concerns (Manski et al., 2014). Most of the women interviewed revealed that they shunned from seeking out healthcare facilities for fear of being stereotyped as weak, not giving the mission priority over one's personal well-being and shirking responsibility (Manski et al., 2014). Pregnancy was also named by participants as a reproductive health concern surrounding deployment -- the women recounted that once one fell pregnant, they were sent home, leaving a void in the unit that the other service members had to devise a way to fill (Manski et al., 2014). The author concur that reproductive health was not so much of an issue when males served alone in frontline ground combat roles; however, it is deemed to become more relevant as units integrate, particularly with the sexual relations concerns that have already been raised by critics of integration (Manski et al., 2014). Researchers contend that health issues have always been a part of military activities; however, it is prudent that stakeholders begin to take reproductive health during deployment into consideration now that integration has become an almost certain possibility.

Besides reproductive health, researchers have also identified mental health as another serious health concern that needs to be addressed as the military prepares for the integration of women into ground combat roles. Hoglund and Schwartz (2014) integrated data from a variety of sources to determine how the mental health of veterans differed from that of the general population. They found that female deployed veterans ran substantially higher odds of adverse mental health than their male counterparts, suggesting a strong association between poor mental health and serving in combat roles, particularly in the case of women.

These studies give sufficient illustration that the personal health of women could pose some serious challenges for stakeholders as women begin to be integrated into ground combat roles. Even before women were accorded opportunities to serve in such roles, the military had a hard time meeting their reproductive needs -- stigmas associated with getting pregnant and seeking out healthcare facilities barred deployed women from receiving appropriate treatment and care. Researchers agree that it is prudent that these personal health issues are recognized as a legitimate concern and a solution found as more and more women get involved in frontline combat roles (Hoglund & Schwartz, 2014; Manski et al., 2014).

Personal Privacy Issues Surrounding the Integration of Women in Ground Combat Roles

A lot has been said about the personal safety of deployed women serving in combat roles in the military -- some researchers have focused on issues of sexual harassment (Frum, 2013) whereas others have focused on safety based on the masculine norms that govern the military. Koeszegi and his colleagues (2014) conducted a survey to determine how the masculine norms that govern the military, workplace aggression, and male soldiers' attitudes towards women impacted on the private security of female soldiers in combat. The researchers administered the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT) to 443 soldiers in the Austrian Armed Forces -- the study established that 6.5% of female soldiers had been victims of some form of long-term, severe bullying (Koeszegi et al., 2014). The results showed that most of the bullying occurred in combat units and training centers (Koeszegi et al., 2014). It was found that one in every 10 male soldiers had participated in committing an aggressive act against at least one of their female counterparts, whereas one in every two soldiers had witnessed an aggressive act being committed by a male colleague against a female (Koeszegi et al., 2014). Well, owing to the similarities between the American and Austrian Armed Forces, one would expect the results to be significantly similar between the two countries. The researchers, however, showed that the high rate of bullying within combat units could not be attributed to the mere presence of women in such units, but to poor leadership -- women are more vulnerable to bullying in combat units if the unit lacks effective leadership to help curb the vice (Koeszegi et al., 2014). As such, bullying incidents and aggressive attitudes towards women could be minimized if unit and division leaders devise effective ways of building cohesion and encouraging peaceful coexistence. Bartone and his colleagues (2002) recommend the provision of shared experiences and mixed gender training as possible ways of increasing the level of cohesion within a unit.

It turns out, therefore, that besides issues of military cohesion and effectiveness, military stakeholders will also have to devise innovative ways of dealing with the social concerns that could result from the integration of male and female soldiers in combat. The most commonly identified concerns revolve around the mental and reproductive health of female soldiers, and their personal privacy in a male-dominated sphere. Studies have, for instance, shown female soldiers to be more at risk of bullying from their male colleagues than other male soldiers in the same unit. Issues such as these could pose some serious challenges for stakeholders as women begin to be integrated into ground combat roles. It is prudent that the same are recognized as a legitimate concern and a solution found as more and more women get involved in frontline combat roles.

Benefits of having Women in Combat

As I mentioned in an earlier section of this review, the general public appears to support the participation of women in the military and their integration into combat roles. It is no wonder, therefore, that a lot of literature has been written on the potential benefits that the military stands to derive from the integration of men and women in ground combat roles. Most of these have focused on the areas of intelligence collection, cultural barriers, emotional support to other crew members, and unit effectiveness.

Women and CI/HUMINT Collection

Researchers have given a variety of reasons why women are likely to perform better than men in CI/HUMINT collection. Most of these have centered their findings on the differences in the biological make-up of men and women. In their study seeking to assess the differences in communicative conduct between men and women, Burleson (1996) and his colleagues found women to have better people skills than men -- they are able to make friends easily as well as to read people and identify their vulnerabilities and motivations. From an information-gathering perspective, this would mean that women are better-placed to spot and assess potential sources of information, compared to their male counterparts. This makes them more open to obtaining crucial pieces of intelligence about insurgents' operations from local populations.

Zabecki (2008) points out that this became rather evident during the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars, when the I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) implemented such initiatives as the Women's Engagement Program (WEP), popularly known as the Lioness Program to be able to address the divide that existed between male marines and the local Iraqi population - Sergeant Rachel Ramey, one of the leaders of the WEP program in Albar Province in Iraq, mentions in a 2010 interview with the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learnt, that the mere presence of female marines on the ground created an immediate calming and reassuring atmosphere between locals and American soldiers. The female soldiers were more at peace discussing crucial subjects about counterinsurgency operations with female marines better than with their male counterparts (Mulley, 2014).

Researchers also agree that women are better at collecting intelligence from human subjects because of their nurturing instincts (Zabecki, 2008; Mulley, 2014). The role of women in society traditionally was in the home -- they were to stay at home, nurture children and play a supportive role to their husbands. It is believed, therefore, that women are, by their very nature, more nurturing than men. This nurturing nature gives them the ability to empathize with, connect and understand the people that they interact with, thereby allowing for the development of trust and a relational bond that allow for the effective sharing and discussion of information, particularly with other women (Zabecki, 2008). This view is supported by Kerr and his colleagues (2008), who found that cultural issues made the collection of HUMINT by male soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan difficult because the very presence of a male soldier was intimidating to Iraqi women (Kerr et al., 2008). People will often be inclined to share information if they perceive equality and a trust relationship. Zabecki (2008) expresses that women are just better HUMINT intelligence gatherers because their mothering nature allows them to cultivate these better than men.

Other researchers have taken this mothering quality that has been attached to the feminine species as their core shortcoming against effective performance in the battlefield. Christopher (n.d.), for instance, argues that women's mothering characteristic interferes with their ability to focus on the mission when the situation calls for it. It impedes on their ability to make tough decisions in the battlefield when they are required to. This view is supported by Frum (2013), who argues that soft spots have no place in combat, and if the current calls for women to play a more prominent role in the battlefield are actualized, "the mistakes will exact a cost in lives sacrificed and -- very conceivably -- future battles lost" (n.pag).

This argument has, however, been heavily criticized. First, there is no scientific evidence to prove that women are in fact more nurturing than men. Christopher (n.d.) arguers that it is possible that women act and behave the way they do because they are required by the conventions of our traditional cultures to behave in a certain way; as such, their reason for behaving that way is social rather than natural. Towards this end, women are only nurturing in their familial roles and relationships such as the one they share with their children and their spouses; in other associations, however, such as those found in the workplace, women are just as intimidating as their male counterparts (Christopher, n.d.). Christopher (n.d.) in fact argues that in most female/male relationships, it is usually the man that is considered more protective than the woman. From this perspective, the researcher argues that one cannot argue that women are better-placed than men to gather HUMINT from local populations because of their mothering nature. Moreover, one cannot argue that they are not well-equipped to place the mission before the men in the battlefield when the situation requires them to.

A third reason why women are regarded more effective than men in HUMINT collection in the battlefield is because of the changing dynamics of the war field. Muller (2014) and Christopher (n.d.) concur that we are currently living in a push-button era where physical strength in the battlefield is not as important as 'street smarts'. Traditionally, HUMINT was collected mainly through spies or through physically abusive and manipulative techniques. With the evolving dynamics of the battlefield and human rights activism, however, such tactics have fast fallen out of play and have been replaced by 'street smart' techniques -- the ability to assess the vulnerability of a target and devise peaceful yet clever ways to get information out of it (Christopher, n.d.). Throughout history, women have lived as the physically weaker sex, and have been forced to compensate for their physical inabilities by developing these smart techniques (Christopher, n.d.). Rather than rely on physical strength for their survival, they have learnt to survive using these 'smarts'. With these smart techniques, women are way able to act as effective HUMINT gatherers in the modern-day battlefield than their male counterparts, whose superiority makes them more inclined to use force and physical strength.

The autobiographies of the various women who worked as military spies in various historical wars provide a glimpse of the 'smart' techniques that women used to obtain HUMINT without arousing the suspicion of their masters. Margaretha Zelle, for instance, who worked as a French spy in Belgium, used her exotic dancing techniques and near-nude routines to build connections with the Belgian authorities and obtain crucial intelligence from some key figures, which she then supplied to the French authorities (Root, 2010). Anna Chapman, a Russian spy in the U.S. in the 20th century, who was known by the stage name, 'flamed-hair beauty', used her charm and red hair to win the hearts of top officials, obtain sensitive HUMINT, and send the same to the Kremlin in Russia (Root, 2010). Another perfect example is that of Virginia Hall, popularly known as 'the limping lady', who having lost her lower leg in a hunting incident, relied on a wooden prosthetic leg to disguise herself as an elderly goat-herder while gaining sensitive information for the French in Nazi Germany (Root, 2010). Women are able to effectively pull such 'smart' techniques because of the perception that they are meek, sincere, and less inclined to conspire.

Frum (2013), however, critics the idea of bringing female soldiers into the battlefield on grounds that physical strength has lost its relevance in warfare. He argues that:

Soldiers must still hoist heavy packs and match for miles. Soldiers must still be prepared to function with reduced food and water. Soldiers must still sometimes fight and kill their enemies hand to hand; and even in other contexts where strength seems obsolete, the mischance of war can suddenly thrust soldiers into situations where strength determines who lives and who dies (Frum, 2013, n.pag)

The author uses the example of the 2001 encounter between a Chinese 'Finback' fighter jet and an American EP-3E surveillance aircraft, a big plane with a capacity of 24 and powered by 4 turboprop engines (Frum, 2013). The Chinese pilot knocked the EP-3E at the junction of the fuselage and the vertical stabilizer, and his plane split into two, with its nose striking that of the EP-3E with a bang that immediately caused the decompression of the cabin and forced the plane to flip over into a completely inverted dive (Frum, 2013). The plane begins to fall just as fast as the Chinese wreckage. Worryingly, the EP-3E is known to never have recovered from an inverted dive. The captain, Shane Osborne, is forced to use every bit of strength in his muscles to level the wings and manages to bring it to an emergency landing, even if it had already fallen 800 feet from its original altitude (Frum, 2013). That, Frum, (2013) points out is physical strength, and it remains largely relevant to the field of war.

These studies demonstrate that whereas society remains largely divided about whether or not women ought to be integrated into ground combat roles, the CI/HUMINT field could benefit greatly from the presence of women in the battlefield. Owing to their biological givens and nurturing instincts, women could connect better with local population, thereby facilitating the process of obtaining CI/HUMINT from locals on insurgency operations.

Breaking Down Cultural Barriers to Combat Effectiveness

Research has shown that another key advantage of including women in combat is that such a move would facilitate the military's association with the female faction of the population in cultures that forbid women from interacting closely with men unrelated to them. Kerr and his colleagues (2008) contend that culture was a significant barrier to combat effectiveness and mission success during the Iraqi war. Research has shown women, regardless of ethnic background or race, to have a higher ability than their male counterparts to comfort and understand each other in times of chaos and crisis (Christopher, n.d.). In the Iraqi context, women are used to being the weaker species and submitting without question to their men. The very presence of male American soldiers intimidated Iraqi women even further, impeding on their ability to associate effectively with the U.S. military or to even believe that the American soldiers were out to protect their well-being (Kerr et al., 2008). Moreover, the Iraqi culture forbids women from being searched or handled by male U.S. service members (Kerr et al., 2008). As such, the handling of Iraqi women by male service officers was widely interpreted as a sign of disrespect to the Iraqi cultural norms and values. All this tension created an emotional and cultural divide between male American soldiers and the female faction of the Iraqi population, and this made the provision of humanitarian assistance and the acquisition of information on insurgency operations a challenge (Kerr et al., 2008). The introduction of female marines, however, through such initiatives as the Women Empowerment Program (WEP) provided a certain calming effect to the Iraqi women and reassured them that the whole course was geared at protecting their welfare so they did not have to feel intimidated whenever they encountered routine military operations in their neighborhoods and streets (Kerr et al., 2008).

A Source of Emotional Support to other Crew Members

Besides providing support to local populations during combat operations, women have also been shown to be a source of emotional and psychological support for their male crew members. In her book, 'Band of Sisters: American Women at War in Iraq' Holmstedt (2008) mentions that most infantrymen during the Iraqi war preferred to confide in, and talk to women about issues in their personal lives more than their male counterparts (Holmstedt, 2008). A number of theories have been developed to explain such relationships, and the reasons why people will most often confide in, and expect more understanding from people of the opposite sex than those of their won sex (Holmstedt, 2008). According to Holmstedt (2008), men prefer to confide in women because they consider them better listeners and sympathizers. He goes on to mention that regardless of the theory that could be used to explain such occurrences and associations, there is no doubt that having female soldiers in the battlefield would provide some sort of de-facto support system for male soldiers, allowing them to cope effectively with the tensions and pressures of war.

Social and Unit Cohesion

A faction of researchers has attempted to explain how the integration of men and women in ground combat units could in fact improve unit cohesion, and hence combat effectiveness. Rosen and his colleagues (2003) conducted a study to demonstrate this, and concluded that integration could actually help to build unit cohesion. Their findings are based on the culture of hyper masculinity (HM) in military units. They argue that when males bond together in all-males units, they develop HM, which is manifested in stereotypic and exaggerated masculine actions and attributes that could be detrimental to team unity and overall cohesiveness (Rosen et al., 2003). Including women in such teams helps to break down this culture of HM, and its negative consequences (Rosen et al., 2003). Their study sought to compare the levels of HM in male-only teams versus gender-mixed teams -- it was established that male-only units will often have higher levels of HM than gender-mixed teams (Rosen et al., 2003). The researchers concluded that this happens because in gender-mixed teams, the culture of HM is replaced with that of 'ungendered professionalism', which is the bond that holds the team members together (Rosen et al., 2003). From this perspective, therefore, integration could actually help to brak the masculine norms of the military, and thereby increase overall cohesion among members of a unit or division.

Obviously, therefore, there are a number of benefits that the military stands to gain from integrating men and women in ground combat units. The first of these is increased opportunities for collecting CI/HUMINT on insurgency operations from local populations. Researchers have provided a variety of reasons for why women are better and more effective HUMINT gatherers than men. Most of these are based on women's biological givens, which make them more nurturing, caring and less intimidating than men. Additionally, it has been shown that women could be crucial in breaking down cultural barriers to effective combat operations, in offering emotional support to male combatants, and in building social cohesion among unit members. One study actually suggested that integration could be a viable way of breaking the masculine norms of the military and making the institution more appreciative of women's physical and cognitive abilities. This ideology is, however, largely unsubstantiated; future research could be conducted in this particular area to determine whether indeed gender-mixed teams are more appreciative of women's abilities than male-only units.

Means of Integrating without Negatively Affecting Operational Effectiveness

Most of the existing literature has focused on the whys and why-not's of women's integration into ground combat units. Very little has been written about how to execute such integration without negatively affecting operational effectiveness. Literature in this particular area is thus still rather scanty.

In his monograph titled, 'Infantrypersons,' Major L. W. Knotts argues that there are women out there who want to serve in the military protecting their fellow countrymen; and they ought to be given the opportunity to actualize their passion (Knotts, 1996). He based this finding on a survey that he conducted on eighty female students at the Command and General Staff College -- the results showed that contrary to popular belief, a significant number of women would actually consider an infantry career, and an even more significant number believes that women ought to be allowed to serve in combat roles (Knotts, 1996). Well, it would be prudent to point out that the results of this particular survey could be outdated given the long time period between the time it was conducted and now; nonetheless, the researcher interprets the results to mean that women would love to serve in combat roles in the military and would appreciate if they were accorded such opportunities (Knotts, 1996). The researcher supports this fact, but cautions that measures should be taken to ensure that the provision of such opportunities to women does not compromise the effectiveness of the military -- the physical standards of the military ought not to be compromised just so the institution appears fair to women (Knotts, 1996). He proposes the placement of quotas that represent the new integration policy (Knotts, 1996). Towards this end, women could be subjected to physical screening to ensure that they meet the physical requirements for combat roles, and this screening could be separate from the general physical fitness test (Knotts, 1996).

The New Zealand Army Policy (CGS Directive 39/00) also provides crucial insight on what needs to be done to carry out a successful integration without affecting military effectiveness. New Zealand is one of the countries that have already integrated women into their combat units; and owing to the similarities between New Zealand and the United States, the insight provided therein could be generalized to the American context. The policy identifies a number of preparatory steps that ought to be taken prior to the integration program to ensure more efficiency. To begin with, workplaces and accommodation need to be prepared to ensure that high levels of privacy and personal security can be guaranteed (CGS Directive, 2000). Commanders need to be prepared and trained on effective leadership and cohesion-enhancing strategies in an integrated setting (CGS Directive, 2000). Training could take the form of an online course covering gender issues, to which all commanders will be required to subscribe (CGS Directive, 2000). Male soldiers, who seem to be the ones with the problem, need to be made aware of the benefits of integration and the potential/capability of women so that they no longer harbor negative attitudes towards their female counterparts (CGS Directive, 2000). They need to be guaranteed that all women who get selected into combat roles will need to have passed the physical requirements for the same, and to have proven their capability in such positions (CGS Directive, 2000). This knowledge-sharing should be focused mainly on the lowest levels of leadership because that is where the effects of integration will are likely to be felt most intensely (CGS Directive, 2000). The policy also proposes a spread of genders through the ranks to allow for effective mentoring (CGS Directive, 2000). Most of the preparatory work, as the CGS policy points out, will be carried out by unit commanders; the commanders will be fully responsible for the training, awareness and mentoring programs within their units (CGS Directive, 2000).

The CGS Directive, however, raises an important concern about where exactly women ought to be inserted in the battalion structure. The Directive recommends that they be inserted at the private soldier and newly commissioned officer levels -- the two levels where credibility is not so much of a factor, and neither is prior experience (CGS Directive, 2000). Senior officer and noncommissioned officer positions may not be suitable for women because these require one to have passed certain demanding levels of training and to possess knowledge gained from prior experience; placing unqualified persons in such positions would be a recipe for failure (CGS Directive, 2000). At the same time, women ought not to be seen as having been accorded command positions on a silver platter; this would create animosity between them and their male peers. As such, women ought to go through the same challenging process as their peers to rise through the ranks -- this is likely to earn them the respect of their male colleagues and could drive them to change the negative attitudes and perceptions they hold about women's abilities and potential.

In his article on the U.S.A. Today magazine, Jim Michaels (2014) recognizes the fundamental role played by female marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asserts that women interested in taking up combat positions be accorded opportunities to do so. He, however, proposes that since such jobs as infantry and Special Forces have traditionally been closed to them, interested women ought to be encouraged to take up relevant military courses so that they are well-prepared for the challenges that await them in the battlefield (Michaels, 2014). The author quotes the example of the 13-week Infantry Officer course that has already been introduced by the Marine Corps -- such courses, he posits will go a long way in familiarizing interested women with the challenges of frontline combat, and will provide an invaluable opportunity for them to assess their abilities and potential (Michaels, 2014).

One salient theme across all these studies is that women indeed deserve to be integrated into ground combat units; however, that integration ought to be carried out in such a manner that it does not compromise combat effectiveness. The literature identifies a number of issues that ought to be addressed in order for the maximum benefits of integration to be realized. First, there is need to ensure that military effectiveness is not ruined by the physical differences between men and women. Moreover, privacy concerns ought to be addressed and there ought to be effective mechanisms for dealing with harassment issues. The literature proposes that quotas be introduced to ensure compliance with directives and a support hierarchy be established by introducing women in different leadership positions throughout the ranks. Moreover, it is paramount that the appropriate training is advanced to women joining combat units to ensure that they are aware of, and properly prepared to handle the challenges inherent in frontline combat. Training ought also to be advanced to unit commanders to ensure that they are knowledgeable about the concept of effective leadership in integrated units. Finally, the literature proposes that male soldiers be made aware of the physical abilities of women, and guaranteed that all women who get selected to frontline roles will be required to have met the standard physical requirements for the same.

Summary

In summary, a lot has been written about the integration of women in ground combat units; however, most of this literature has focused on explaining why or why not such integration ought to take place. A large number of studies have focused on the potential costs and benefits that the military stands to derive from integrating women into combat units; however, very few studies have sought to examine the effect of such integration on CI/HUMIT collection specifically. There still are huge knowledge gaps in regard to how the field of CI/HUMINT collection stands to lose or benefit from the integration of women into ground combat units. The researcher is of the strong belief that such insight ought to be taken into consideration even as the debate on whether integration is the right decision rages on. This review has shown that one of the fundamental steps that ought to be taken as women take up combat roles is the training of male combatants on the potential benefits of such integration and eliminating the negative attitudes that most of them currently harbor. Understanding the impact that integration could have on CI/HUMINT collection from local communities could go a long way in informing such training and knowledge-sharing. The current uses the literature reviewed in this chapter to determine exactly how the field of CI/HUMINT collection stands to benefit from integration, and what stakeholders need to do to ensure that the issues raised are addressed, and that hence, the maximum benefits of integration are realized. The methodology that will be used to achieve this has been outlined in the next chapter.

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

Why a Qualitative Approach: I made use of a qualitative approach in seeking answers to the research questions presented at the beginning of his thesis. The overriding aim of any research is to gather intelligence and bring to light behaviors/trends that are yet to be illuminated. Quantitative approaches rely on numbers and statistics to achieve that whereas qualitative techniques attempt to explain, in a natural setting, why things are the way they are. Data collected through qualitative techniques, though not easily measurable, has the ability to reveal valuable attitudes and perspectives that may never have been revealed in a limiting question-answer modality such as a questionnaire. The research questions guiding the study are, from their very nature, open-ended and exploratory; they are based on opinion more than they are on facts, and may, therefore, not be adequately responded to using a standardized questionnaire requiring participants to give rigid responses without expressing explanations for the same. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier on, the study area is one with limited literature, and the main aim, therefore, is not the quantification of variables but the provision of detailed insight, in this case, how exactly the field of CI/HUMINT collection stands to benefit from the integration of women into combat roles, and why, therefore, stakeholders need to support the same.

Data Collection: the data used in answering the research questions was collected mainly through reviews of secondary resources, including books, magazine articles, journal articles, and military articles touching on the question of integration as well as the biological qualities of women that make them effective or kept a reflective journal, in which she documented her thoughts about the area of study, new pieces of knowledge gained throughout the study period, and her experiences throughout the study period. According to Janesick (2014) journaling allows a researcher to document their experiences, reflections, mindsets, biases, and emotional states, all of which could provide valuable data for their final reporting.

Resource Selection: I conducted a qualitative content analysis of articles and books touching on the subject of women and CI/HUMINT. I did not limit myself to articles written within specific dates because there is very little literature on this particular area of study, and I figured that the best way to go would be to obtain as much information about the area of study as possible. I used the LexisNexis academic database to locate relevant resources. I used the search topic 'Women and CI/HUMINT', and first selected 'journals'. The search yielded 14 results, but most of them focused on why women had been excluded from the CI/HUMINT field, and not necessarily mentioning the possibility of their inclusion in the same. I disregarded these resources as they did not respond to my research question. I moved to the 'books' category in the content type and located one resource that I thought was substantially relevant to my first research question. Since I was interested in determining the biological qualities that make women more effective than men in CI/HUMINT collection, I conducted another search on the differences in the people and interpersonal skills of men and women, and how these qualities help them in associating, connecting and obtaining information from others. This search proved more productive, yielding a huge number of relevant articles. I used the purposeful sampling technique and only chose that articles that supported the case that women had better interpersonal skills and connected better with people unrelated to them than men. I ended up with 5 resources, which I used alongside that which I had found relevant in the first search to build a case for why women would make better CI/HUMINT gatherers than men. In regard to the second research question, I searched for 'Women in Combat -- best practices for increased efficiency' -- there was a significant number of relevant resources in this case. I selected those that I felt provided information in a way that was simple and easily understandable.

Procedures: my research questions were geared at determining how the CI/HUMINT community stands to benefit from the integration of women into combat roles, and what the military could do to ensure that it realizes the full benefits of the same without compromising overall effectiveness. I created an analysis sheet (presented in appendix 1) to act as a systematic guide in the categorization of ideas and the identification of thoughts. From the review of literature that I had conducted, I could easily tell what categories of concerns could be raised. RQ1 was addressed in the first part of the analysis sheet whereas RQ2 was addressed in the second part. The first part of the analysis sheet was intent on identifying how the CI.HUMINT collection field would benefit from the integration of women into combat roles. I made the assumption that the biological givens of the female species made it more effective at associating and interacting with people, and hence, having women in combat would facilitate the military's process of obtaining sensitive information from human subjects. Guided by this assumption, I conducted a critical review of the selected articles looking for specific opinions supporting the fact that women were more effective in HUMINT collection than men, or explaining the specific biological qualities that made women (men) effective (ineffective) in CI/HUMINT collection.

RQ2 was covered in the second section of the analysis sheet. In this case, I made the assumption that in order for the CI/HUMINT function to benefit from integration as suggested in RQ1, the military will need to devise effective frameworks for addressing the issues raised by those opposed to integration so that the full benefits of the process can be realized. In this case, I interacted with the relevant resources, looking at the specific privacy, safety, and cohesion issues that they raised; and the solutions that they proposed to address the same so that the full benefits of integration could be realized.

Data Analysis

I read through each resource using the three-stage iterative reading process described by Bowen (2009). In the first reading, I went through the information presented in the resource critically to gain a full understanding of the arguments it presented, and which research question it responded to. In the second reading, I read through the resource, this time using the analysis sheet to mark specific sections of the resource with the research questions and subordinate questions. During the final reading, I went through the resource highlighting specific passages that contained information that directly supported the research questions and subordinate questions. Once I had read all the resources, been acquainted with the information they presented, and highlighted the passages that directly supported my research questions, I categorized the selected articles into two -- category 1 contained resources with information pertaining to section 1 of the analysis sheet (RQ1) whereas category 2 contained resources with information pertaining to section 2 (RQ2). This categorization was meant to make the data analysis process easier and more systematic.

I began by analyzing data inherent in the category 1 resources - I organized the highlighted sections of all the resources into thematic groupings based on the specific question that they responded to. Passages responding to the first subordinate question under RQ1 were annotated using the figure 1, whereas those responding to the second and third questions were annotated using figures 2 and 3 respectively. The procedure was repeated for questions under RQ2.

Chapter 4: Results

This study was geared at determining how the field of CI/HUMINT collection of the U.S. military stands to benefit from the integration of women into land combat roles, and what needs to be done to ensure that the maximum benefits of integration are realized. Understanding how women could facilitate the collection of CI/HUMINT in the battlefield could go a long way in getting male military personnel (who have expressed so much dissatisfaction at the integration idea) to change their perspectives and attitudes about the abilities and potential of women. The timing of this project is timely given that the military is deemed to be opening up all positions in direct combat that were previously closed for women by 1st January, 2016. If this happens before male soldiers and military personnel can change their perspectives and opinions, and see the benefits of integration, female soldiers are deemed to have an extremely difficult time in combat units. Providing insight on how specific areas such as CI/HUMINT collection stand to benefit from integration is one way to get them to change the negative attitudes. The researcher figured, however, that the various issues that have been raised by male soldiers, and others opposed to the process of integration are weighty and cannot be ignored. In addition to showing how the field of CI/HUMINT collection stands to benefit from the integration of women into ground combat roles, therefore, the study was also intent on showing the various steps that could be taken to ensure that the issues raised are addressed and that hence, military effectiveness is not compromised.

RQ1: how does the CI/HUMINT function stand to benefit from the inclusion of women in ground combat roles?

The main theme emerging from the various resources was that the field of intelligence collection, particularly in the case of human subjects stands to benefit from the inclusion of women into ground combat roles. This was largely attributed to the biological differences that exist between men and women. Researchers were in contention that the nurturing nature of women made them better than men at understanding and connecting with others; and their inclusion in such units would definitely facilitate the collection of sensitive information on insurgency operations from local populations.

RQ1A: what biological qualities make women more effective CI/HUMINT gatherers than men?

People Skills: resources in favor of integration showed women to be effective HUMINT gatherers because of their people skills. A study by Burleson (2006) showed that women are, compared to men, able to make friends easily, and to effectively connect with others by identifying their vulnerabilities and motivations. This power is thought to develop from their child-rearing and spouse support roles within the home -- they have learnt the art of reassuring and providing emotional support to their children and spouses. In the field of war, researchers contend that this would translate to an ability to connect with local populations, gain their trust, reassure them that the mission is out to protect their well-being, and get them to provide crucial information that could help bring the strife produced by local insurgents to an end. One study affirms that the Lioness Program in Iraq was a perfect demonstration of this - Sergeant Rachel Ramey, one of the program's leaders mentioned in an interview with the Marine Corps Center for Lessons learnt that the presence of female marines on the ground would often create an immediate calming and reassuring atmosphere for locals, who seemed more at peace discussing crucial subjects about counterinsurgency operations with female marines better than with their male counterparts.

The mothering/nurturing quality: women's place traditionally was in the home -- they often stayed at home to nurture, and play a supportive role to their spouses and husbands. Researchers contend that women are, therefore, naturally more nurturing than men -- it is their nature. Mulley (2014) and Zabecki (2008) showed that the nurturing nature of women gives them the ability to empathize with, connect with, and understand others better than men. This breeds the development of trust and a relational bond that allows for the effective sharing and discussion of information with local populations, particularly women. In another study, Christopher (n.d.) indicated that people will often be more comfortable sharing information if they perceive trust and understanding; the mothering nature of women allows them to cultivate this better than men. The researchers, therefore, conclude that the presence of women in ground combat units would facilitate the development of a social bond between the military and local populations, and would consequently facilitate the gathering of sensitive information on insurgency operations.

Those opposed to the whole idea of integration have, however, critiqued the applicability of his argument. One counterargument put forth by most of the selected resources is that there is no scientific evidence to prove that women are nurturing even in associations that are beyond their familial links. Christopher (n.d.) for instance, argues there is no evidence to prove that women are more nurturing and sympathetic than men at the workplace. He mentions that in the field of war, women are exposed to the same challenges and dangers as their male counterparts; their chances of survival and living to see the next day are equal to those of other members of the crew, and they undergo the same intensity of training as other unit members. Towards this end, critics of integration argue there is no reason to believe that women would carry on their nurturing and sympathetic nature to the battlefield. Well, perhaps future research could focus on studying whether women are nurturing in their very nature, or they exhibit 'nurturing' nature on the basis of prevailing circumstances.

RQ1B: what qualities make it a challenge from male soldiers to collect CI/HUMINT from local populations?

Focus on Physical Strength: what comes out quite clearly from the selected resources is that the dynamics of the battlefield are changing. There is some kind of agreement that the modern-day battlefield is of a push-button nature; however, researchers remain largely divided on the question of whether or not physical strength is still a significant factor in the battlefield. Military studies seem to suggest that physical strength is still a necessity in the field of war; however, most civilian literature suggests that intellectual potential, and the ability to accurately identify targets and vulnerabilities is the key to success in the modern-day battlefield. Well, there is a possibility that military studies have a more accurate picture given that it is they who carry out the actual mission on the ground; however, there also is the risk of bias, particularly because they have openly declared their opposition to the whole idea of integration. This is a subject that future research could strive to provide insight on.