The Army's women in combat policy and presidential directive conflict

Women in Combat

Women have been on the front lines, as of a half a century ago. Historically women have played a more passive role in the military; however, this eventually changed over the years, by women moving into more historically masculine roles. Key and controversial issues have come up in regards to women in combat: the Army's attempt to place women in combat despite the no women-in-combat rule, Bush's directive not being followed through, and proposals being pushed to limit women in combat. There are many questions one might ponder and choose to discuss in regards to women in combat. However, these questions may be answered, it is important to keep the women in mind, as well as their needs. Many lessons can be learned from this topic, including that research needs to be continued on this topic in order to better understand women and their needs, as well as in order to gain a better understanding among the president's directives and the views of the Defense department. Women deserve opportunities and choices, just as males do. How those within the circle of this issue decide on how to proceed will affect many, primarily women.

Historical Perspective

Women have served in support positions in the military throughout history. Women historically served in the military as nurses and often assisted in providing food and clothing for soldiers. It was not until recently, about half of a century ago, that the number of women serving in direct combat units increased. At one point in history, some women dressed up as men in order to be given the same chance as men to fight in combat (Chancey, 2003). There are historical examples that prove that women have indeed fulfilled their duties of fighting on the battlefield; however, exceptions do not always make the rules.

Focus on Key Issue(s)

There are several key issues that are current hot topics in regards to women in combat. They are among the following: the army is attempting to place women in combat despite Women-In-Combat rule, House armed services chairman retreats on proposal to limit women in combat, and Bush declares, "No women in combat."

First of all, the army is attempting to place women in combat despite the Women-In-Combat rule. Does the president know what the army is doing (Donnelly, 2005)? On the issue of women in land combat, it is hard to tell who has the authority on what needs to be done. It seems that Bush has said one thing, "no women in land combat," but the Pentagon is doing another. There seems to be a lack of communication and no one is on the same page when it comes to this subject. The Women-In-Combat rule refers to the current Defense department regulations that exempts female soldiers from land combat troops such as the infantry and from smaller support companies that collocate with them (Donnelly, 2005). Bush did an interview recently, January 2005, in which he declared, "No women [in land] combat (Donnelly, 2005)." If the Department of defense would want to alter the rules, federal law requires formal notice to Congress 30 legislative days (approximately three months) in advance. Despite this army officials are implementing plans that would force female soldiers into smaller forward support companies, which operate with land combat troops. The assignments will needlessly complicate combat missions and undermine the progress of the Army's transformation (Donnelly, 2005).

Secondly, House armed services chairman, Duncan Hunter, retreats on proposal to limit women in combat (Owens, 2005). After several hours of negotiations, the House armed services chairman decided to strip language in the FY06 defense authorization bill to require Congress to add a weaker language, in regards to women in combat. The latest language would require the Pentagon to give Congress a notice of 60 days before opening any of the 191 military positions now closed to women. The new amendment also includes more detailed notification requirements and requires the military to submit a report to Congress on assignment policies. The original language, opposed by the Pentagon, required that the Defense department secure congressional approval before opening more combat roles to women (Scully, 2005).

Thirdly, Bush declares, "No Women in [land] Combat (Donnelly, 2005)." During an interview with the Washington Times in January, Bush declared this. Bush was referring to the current Defense department regulations that exempt female soldiers from land combat troops such as the infantry and from smaller support companies that work with them (Donnelly, 2005).

Discussion Questions

A few discussion questions that one can ponder on and discuss, which is not limited to these, are:

1.

Can women stand in the line of fire?

2.

Should we place women in harm's way?

3.

Should women be given the same opportunities as men in regards to going into combat?

4.

Do you feel that women should be allowed to make a choice between being

placed on the front lines or working in a different area/unit?

These questions can either be rhetorical or they may bring up an argumentative discussion among individuals or a group of individuals. There may be many different views and opinions on answering these questions. It is important to ponder on these questions, read the literature on the subject of women in combat, form your own opinion and listen to others views. Argue your point when appropriate.

Lessons Learned

Lessons learned from this topic, include that research on women in combat needs to be continued in order to better understand women's needs, as well as to gain a better understanding among the directives of the president and the views of the Defense department. Another lesson to be learned is that a lack of unity exists among those in authority positions. It seems that a directive and a rule was set; however, nothing this directive and rule are not being followed. It seems that individuals in this circle need to get together and follow a unified plan so that a process is in place and so that women will be aware of what they are to do in regards to this subject. A lack of unity remains.

Conclusion

Women have definitely played a role in history in regards to the military and combat. Historically, women played more passive roles such as in care giving and support in the military. In more recent times, beginning about a half of a century ago, women have joined the front lines to fight in combat. Issues, in regards to women in combat, have come up; the Army's attempt to place women in combat despite the no women in combat rule, Bush's directive not being followed through, and proposals being pushed to limit women in combat. These issues remain to be discussed and explored. One might ponder and question themselves, in regards issues of women in combat. It is important to keep in mind the big picture, the women. It seems that research needs to be continued on this topic in order to be able to better understand this issue, as well as in order to gain a better understanding among the president's directives and the strong views of the Defense department.

After Michelle Witmer was killed in combat in Iraq, on April 9, 2004, her sisters of whom were also in the military wondered if they should return back to Iraq, after a time of leave. They decided to not go back. Her sisters, Charity and Rachel, remember the closeness that they developed with their unit and felt that they could not let them down. They felt a sense of camaraderie; however, they felt that they would not have been able to hold it together for their unit and felt they may have a meltdown. The two sisters expressed how important family was and that they would be better off staying home as they were grieving for their beloved sister. They remember their sister as making a difference in people's lives ("She had," 2004).