Women in the Army - Research Paper Example

Why women belong in combat! Women in combat are female soldiers allocated/assigned to combat positions. History suggests that the combat positions were initially assigned to male individuals. Over time, however, individual women serving in combat were usually disguised as men or in leadership positions as queens e.g. queen Boudica. She led the Britons against Rome. Also, Joan of arc is a famous example. In the WWII(second world war), hundreds of thousands of German and British women soldiers served in combat roles but only in anti-aircraft units. It is in these positions that they shot down hundreds of enemy fliers. These positions were accepted because the women were safe of capture. The Soviet Union in large scale used women near/in the front lines as the medical staff and political officers. Sniper female units were also set and also combat fighter planes. In the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, a few women were used in combat roles, in resistance movements. After 1945, all the women combat roles were ended in all armies and their experiences got forgotten (Campbell, 301-323). While the Australian government plans to open up women combat jobs in 2016, New Zealand offers no restriction on the women roles in their defense force. They can serve in infantry, artillery, armor and a special air service. Norway is the first known country to permit women to serve on its submarines. (This was in 1985). In fact, the first female commander of a Norwegian submarine was Kret Solveig in 1995. In Sweden, women can serve in any if not all positions in the military since 1989. Today, about 5.5 percent of the officers are women. In WWI and WWII( first and the second World War), women served in many roles e.g. the Army Nurse Corps as well as the Womens Army Corps. They carried out different tasks such as clerical work, photo analysis, mechanical work and sheet metal working. The qualification of enlisting became the same for men as well as women in 1979 in the US. However, in 1994, the Department Of Defense(DOD) officially banned American women from serving in combat but this ban would only last for nine years. On January 24th, 2003, Leon Panetta (secretary of defense) removed the ban. It is clear that women cannot physically compete with men. With rare exceptions, many women are unable to lift heavy stuff/weights, scale barriers or to pull themselves along a rope that has been suspended above a safety net. If women and men are sought according to sex and tested by making two mile runs, the result will suggest that the average woman took 18 minutes while the average man took 14 minutes. It is also clear that military men are not challenged enough by the training regimen than women. However, there are women who perform better than men in a variety of capabilities. It is clear that women can contribute in unprecedented ways to the mission of the military of defending the nation. Enlisting women can open hundreds of thousands of front line positions and potentially elite commando jobs to women. It is true because, women, (who by the way already make up 15% of the force), have increasingly found themselves in the ‘reality of combat’ during Afghanistan and Iraq. Enlisting women also gives females a chance to honor their countries by fighting for it. Women are important to the operational effectiveness of a country’s armed forces as they bring talent and skills on the board. Some female soldiers are ‘deeply uncomfortable’ with the idea of excluding a whole group of able soldiers just because they are women. However, others say that women might not meet the standards required for combat duties. In fact, ‘two women who made it through marine training in the US did not qualify.’ There does not exist a single country on earth or the universe for that matter that has been named to have male comrades only. Thus, being said, women belong in battle. They should have the chance/opportunity to defend their country just like men. While the army expects an infantry soldier to walk twenty miles while carrying fifty pounds of stuff, this standard should apply regardless of gender of the individuals. Recent studies from Harvard Business School and MIT show that’ group intelligence’ of the group rises when women are on teams. Women contribute a unique level of ‘social sensitivity,’ the ability to read the emotions of other people. Social sensitivity is an important skill for military professions in today’s battlefields. Women can be so important in battle. One woman soldier went to fight in Iraq said that: ‘most Iraq men were reluctant to speak to us in fear of the Al-Qaida. So we used Iraq women, as they were fed up with the violence and chaos in their neighborhoods. We persuaded them to provide information, though we had to first bridge the gender gap, build/make rapport and earn their individual trust, all of which took a lot of valuable time (Denn 34-70). Having women in military platoons dramatically increases a military’s ability to elicit critical intelligence which means a mission’s failure or success, with lives in the balance. Military forces should embed an all-female cultural support teams in their units because all armies need the same skill set that women are adept at providing. Also, including women in the front-line units would be seen as more than an exercise in social equality. This would be a valuable enhancement of military effectiveness and national security. Women serving in close-combat roles make armed services look ‘more normal to society’ and also demonstrates there are equal opportunities within the organization thus boosting the recruitment of women to the army. There is no doubt that women are physically and psychologically capable of doing the job but, the effects of the ‘gender mixing’ on team cohesion are unknown and could have ‘far-reaching and grave consequences.’ Physical strength and combat abilities depend equally as much on the strength, stamina, courage, and dexterity-all of which women could match or even outdo their male colleagues. They should also be assigned sniper roles or fighter pilots. The idea of women in combat in not unusual anymore. Women should be assigned to combat positions because; the military forces still needs the intelligence that women bring. Banning women from the combat units hurts their military careers. During the War of the Persian Gulf, women were assigned to the Middle East to fly the helicopters, refuel tankers, service combat jets, and load laser guided bombs. The women performance in the war has led the world to perceive that women can be extremely helpful in combat. Dick Chaney (defense Secretary) said ‘women have made a significant contribution to this war. We could not have won without them.’ Leaders in the field agreed. The Gulfian War had the largest deployment/positioning of women in the Armed Forces, in the history of America. These women were exposed to the same danger and faced the same risks as the men they served with. 21 (twenty-one) females lost their lives in the war (Holm 67-68). Army researchers conducted a study that concluded that women, if correctly trained, she can get as tough as a man. The study said that regular jogging, weight training among other exercises once set on a woman, can prepare her to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by men in the military. Contrary to the view of many policy makers, the operational performance of a group greatly improves if both men and women (both sexes) are involved. Military units did not have separate sex wagon trains pioneering the West. The point is, units comprised of men and women have bonded/cohesed and even maintained good order for centuries. These units are usually too busy doing their jobs/fighting to worry about who uses which latrine. A classical example of mixed units that performed as cohesive and effective units/teams even under fire is dessert storm. The ‘killing thing’ as said by the society is that women cannot do it. There is an argument that it is not necessarily a male/female thing even though the society portrays it that way. There are known women who can go to the wall for a complete stranger in the trenches. Many6 women have excellent shots with carbine, automatic weapons and pistols. The ability of women soldiers being capable of doing the tasks even men do was proven by the fact that US pentagon officials during a briefing on Afghanistan war confirmed that there would be ‘gender-neutral standards’ for combat positions. A perfect example is if an individual wanted to work in a tank, he/she would have to show the ability to repeatedly load 55 pound tank shells, just as men would be required to do. The reason for not lowering the standards for men and women to attain is that, while the country’s military lowers the standards, the rest of the world will not be lowering their standards. Infantry troops routinely carry backpacks with sixty of seventy pounds of gear, or even more. This is because roadside bombs and explosives causes the most common injury in battlefield (e.g. in Afghanistan). This raises the question whether a female combat soldier would be able to carry two hundred pounds male colleague who has been wounded. In Afghanistan, the marines have set up all female teams, known as ‘lionesses,’ who are assigned to speak to Afghanistan women who would never open up/speak to the male U.S troops. The U.S marines have found them extremely helpful in gathering intelligence. The military is a huge organization and women are already making real strands in advancing. According to the military, women make up about 15 % of the overall force and about 17% of the officers. From a personal perspective, women are physically able of combat. If the standards for recruitment are gender neutral, then if women can meet the standards, they by definition can fulfill their duties. Policy makers have usually taken women as ‘weak.’ This, however, should not be applied when determining if they should go to combat without serious stereotyping the various women individuals. Before a woman is ruled out for combat, she should be tested of her individual/personal physical abilities. The military should also acknowledge the potential for improvement for the women who usually have less prior physical activity. This can be brought or improved through more and intense training until perfection. At least there should be a second chance for women. While there are jobs that are perceived difficult for women(that is true), there are equal mission critical jobs that women can perform better. Task definition should also be used. This means that, in combat positions, the members should consider if there are other available ways of getting the job done without using that which ’a woman cannot do!’ It is the belief, and not the physical strength (although important) that motivates the de jure exclusion, the very justification forbidden by law, and detrimental to women, men, and the military mission.(Goodell, 17). Steven Newsom, who is in the navy once posted on the internet concerning boys who argue that women should not be in combat: ‘women not being in as effective as men on the battlefield has not been true since we stopped using swords and bows to settle the war. Grow up boys, and do us in the armed forces a favor- either sign up, or stop whining about who is in the military.’ The simple and pure point is that all tasks/jobs should be open to both men and women, if and only if the women and men are capable, competent, qualified, and able to perform them! Nothing more, nothing less!. Reference Campbell Dann, ‘Women in combat the world war II experience in the US, Germany, Great Britain and the Soviet Union’, Journal Of Military History 1993 1(57) 301-323. Print Denn William. ‘Women in combat can strengthen military. 2014, 34-70. The Washington post. Print Maia B. Goodell. “Physical- strength Rationals for De Jure: Exclusion of Women from Military Combat positions” Seattle University Law Review 34(2010): 17. Print Holm, Jeanne, Women In Combat: The New Reality, 2003, pg. 67-68. Print Read More