Women in Combat: Physical, Cultural, and Leadership Issues

Introduction

According to online polls, whether and how women should serve in combat is one of the top social issues of recent years. One of the reasons this issue has gained prominence is that as of January 1, 2016, the military began phasing in a new policy opening ground combat positions to women. Over 200,000 new combat positions have been available since January 2016, but "relatively few women have been trained or deployed for these jobs yet," revealing important structural, human resources, and leadership impediments to gender equality in the military (Patterson 1).

Historically, women have not served in the military other than in medical and support roles (Barry). Women have, however, served in combat roles globally within the past several generations. The list of countries in which women serve in official military combat roles is astonishingly long and surprisingly diverse, from Eritrea to New Zealand. Even in cultures with strong traditional gender norms, such as Pakistan, females are permitted to serve as fighter pilots (Fisher). In the United States, women have been serving indirectly in positions akin to combat and have died in the line of duty (Patterson). Since Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, women have also been deployed as "fighter, bomber, attack, and helicopter pilots in all branches of the military, and aboard combat and support Navy and Coast Guard vessels" (Klenke 38). Given that women already enjoy a strong presence on the front lines of the armed forces, it seems remarkable that there would be any controversy at all about the recent opening of ground combat positions.

Yet it was amid great public and military sector outcry that in 2013, the United States lifted its ban on women serving in infantry, artillery, and other units defined as direct combat (Bumiller and Shanker). Military officials continue to decry gender equality in combat, with statements published in military journals claiming that "political correctness has no chance against Nature" (Eden 46). Women are, however, going to serve in combat because the Pentagon has directed it, and the question now is not whether women should serve in combat, but how women can be trained to reach their highest potential in battle situations.

The pros and cons of women serving in direct combat are important to outline and understand objectively. Women have not yet been fully integrated into military combat units, as the Pentagon and each branch of the military work out specific methods of integration. The key issues surrounding this question include how to address training and skills development, how to alter core military organizational culture, how to maximize the potential of all soldiers across different types of combat scenarios, and how to address gender gaps in combat leadership.

Physical Differences and Combat Readiness

Physical preparedness for combat is a primary issue in the debate over women serving in front-line positions. As Barry points out, one of the main arguments presented against gender equality in combat positions is physical readiness. All armies maintain greater physical fitness standards for combat training, and this is especially true for branches like the Marine Corps. Some studies have shown that women cannot compete physically with their male counterparts in every metric, with one Marine Corps study finding that an all-male group "significantly outperformed the integrated group in almost every metric" and that women were "slower and weaker" (Klenke 42). Some sources point to biological differences between men and women to presume differences in combat readiness: "Anatomically speaking, men have broader shoulders and backs, and thicker necks. Males are born with more testosterone, which enhances the body's ability to build muscle. This physical advantage helps males to handle the stresses of combat" (Smith). Those who oppose female participation in combat cite two specific concerns related to physical ability and the training requirements for maximum military preparedness (Thompson).

Eden claims that gender differences in ability are "deal breakers in combat" (43). Yet research reveals that the physical strength argument also exposes significant double standards. Not all men can compete at the highest physical level, and many underperform women who are at peak fitness. "Many women have the physical strength and stamina to engage in ground combat while many men do not" (Klenke 44). Furthermore, Klenke notes that women are often systematically excluded from training exercises that might have improved their performance — a problem directly connected to leadership failures and a culture of gender bias in the military.

Much of the gender gap in physical preparedness is attributable to differences in training. As of yet, women do not receive the same basic training that might better prepare the most physically capable among them to serve in demanding combat roles. The Marine Corps, for instance, is only beginning to require females to complete pull-ups in order to ensure that more women have the capacity to serve in combat roles should they choose to do so (Seck). As a result, fewer than half of women in the Marine Corps are able to complete three pull-ups (Seck). The problem appears to be inadequate or gender-biased training rather than innate inability. Developing more robust training and skills programs for female soldiers on a combat track presents specific challenges for military personnel seeking to create a gender-neutral combat force. Some believe that "the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not make it a worthwhile move" (Sisters in Arms). Because change can seem threatening, many military personnel resist reconsidering how to build a more inclusive force.

Current physical strength and training exercises designed to prepare soldiers for combat discriminate against women and reflect a culture of double standards. Because existing strength and endurance tests are designed for men, aspiring female combatants may risk injury during training or ground execution (Sisters in Arms). Poor training design is the problem, not female soldiers. Women are biologically different from men and therefore do have different physical capacities, but those capacities can still become assets in the field. As the military moves toward full gender integration, it is essential to develop appropriate physical training programs to maximize the potential of all soldiers and enable them to serve where they are needed and can perform at their best.

Voices in favor of a gender-neutral combat force cite several reasons why women should be allowed to serve in any role for which they are qualified. Because the nature of military combat has changed dramatically due to advances in technology, gender and sheer physical strength play a less significant role in some combat missions. Women already serve in specific tactical roles, including as fighter pilots. Even in missions involving traditional physical force, gender may be less important than innate ability, training, and psychological strength. Some men may be better suited to combat roles that rely more on psychological than physical capability, just as some women may be better suited than some men to serve on the front lines. It is not necessary to lower overall standards, but simply to adjust standards to meet the requirements of each specific combat role. Military jobs "should be based on performance, and those who can meet those standards should be able to participate" (Iskra). Individual combat roles could have their own sets of standards, eliminating the fear that allowing women in combat would compromise physical readiness. Additionally, "systems are in place to ensure the inclusion of women does not compromise national defense — because unqualified women will self-select out of the service or will be unable to meet the physically demanding requirements" (Dunn 1).

Conclusion

Whether or not to permit women to serve on the front lines is no longer a debate tied to the fact that women can become pregnant. Gender roles have been slowly but surely changing throughout the world. Women are no longer perceived as subservient domestic servants, nor are they viewed as merely ancillary support staff rather than combat-ready military personnel. These social changes are matched by policy changes in the military, now taking effect in the United States. As a result, the U.S. Army and other branches of the American armed forces have been called upon by the Pentagon to become gender-neutral, following the example of more than a dozen other nations, from Denmark and Israel to New Zealand and Estonia. New gender roles on the front lines do not mean lower standards; quite the contrary, the United States Army states, "we're calling it Soldier of 2020 — it's not male Soldier or female Soldier" (Lopez and Henning). Gender neutrality ensures a more robust military ready to meet the challenges of counterterrorism and other dimensions of modern warfare.

Works Cited

Barry, Ben. "Women in Combat." Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, vol. 55, no. 2, 2013, pp. 19–30.

Bumiller, Elisabeth, and Thom Shanker. "Pentagon Is Set to Lift Combat Ban for Women." The New York Times, 23 Jan. 2013.

Dunn, N. "Pro/Con: Do Women Belong on the Front Lines?" High School Falconer, Feb. 2013.

Eden, Jude. "Women in Combat: The Question of Standards." Military Review, March–April 2015.

Fisher, M. "Map: Which Countries Allow Women in Front-Line Combat Roles?" The Washington Post, 25 Jan. 2013.

Iskra, D. M. "Women in Combat: Is It Really That Big of a Deal?" Time, 6 Feb. 2013.

Klenke, Karin. "Women in Combat." International Leadership Journal, Summer 2016, pp. 38–55.

Lopez, C. T., and J. Henning. "Army Describes Plans for Integrating Women into Combat." U.S. Army, 2013.

MacAskill, E. "Women in Military Combat Is Nothing New, Just Not British." The Guardian, 19 Dec. 2014.

"The Most Popular Social Issues of 2017." I Side With.

Patterson, Thom. "Get Ready for More US Women in Combat." CNN, 11 Nov. 2016.

Putko, M. M., and D. V. Johnson. "Women in Combat Compendium." 2008.

Seck, H. H. "Need to Know." Marine Corps Times, 19 Jan. 2015.

Sisters in Arms. "Women in Combat Pros and Cons." 2009.

Smith, K. "Pro/Con: Should Women Be Allowed in Combat Roles?" Trnwired, 12 Feb. 2013.

Thompson, M. "The Cowardly Push to Get Women into Combat." Time, 25 July 2013.

"Women May Serve in Close Combat Roles by 2016, Says Fallon." BBC News, 2014.