The Case against Women in Combat: An Objective Analysis of Costs - Coursework Example

The Case Against Women in Combat: An Objective Analysis of Costs That the issue of women in combat is contentious is hardly relevant. What is relevant, as a wealth of empirical data suggests, is the fact that women seem to suffer disproportionately when exposed to combat directly and indirectly. This disproportionate suffering occurs at multiple stages; it occurs at basic combat training, it occurs during deployments, and it occurs after the women have been discharged from the military. The data to be presented suggests nothing which is isolated or an aberration; quite the contrary, the data suggests rather forcefully and rather comprehensively that women exposed to combat both directly and indirectly suffer far more than their male counterparts. For instance, as this essay will demonstrate in the following sections, women suffer more physical injuries than men, they often suffer more serious psychological ailments, they resort to substance abuse as a means for coping with the physical and psychological strains, and their presence contributes to a number of novel problems in the military. The point is not that women are incapable of serving in the military. The point most certainly is not that women cannot be good leaders and good soldiers. The thesis of this essay is that women should not be placed in direct combat roles because (1) their presence may very well result in more serious physical and psychological costs than those experienced by male soldiers, and (2) that their presence causes the military to become preoccupied with peripheral issues such as sexual harassment, dating, and disharmony to the exclusion of military readiness and missions. A Military and Medical Perspective As the data will demonstrate, this ought to be viewed and treated as much more than a political or a social issue. The military occupies a special place within the larger political and social framework, its combat functions result in serious injuries and mental strains, and women ought to consider the medical findings and the military realities before demanding increased combat roles. This research paper will define what is meant by combat and, as illustrated in Iraq with messy urban warfare, how traditional notions of combat versus non-combat personnel have become increasingly difficult to define. This blurring of the traditional distinction is of particular relevance in this case because women serving in traditionally non-combat roles have, in fact, been directly exposed to combat nonetheless. After examining the meaning of combat, this essay will analyze a number of recent studies which demonstrate that women suffer greater burdens than their male counterparts. Some of these burdens are biologically-rooted and cannot be remedied by simple shifts in policy. In the final analysis, there is no good scientific or military argument for including women in combat roles. The humane result would be a wholesale exclusion of women from combat. Only a sadist would use women as martyrs to make a point of gender equality, which has been and can continue to be made in less damaging situations and contexts. Combat Versus Non-Combat Combat was traditionally defined as taking place in a specific place with specific people (Skaine, 26); however, Skaine also goes on to note that combat today is more spread out, warring parties often hide and fight among civilians, and that defining a woman as serving in a combat or non-combat role is somewhat disingenuous. This is because, even though most women are theoretically shielded from combat by legislation and by non-combat designations and deployments, the combat reaches and affects women. Indeed, it is an open secret that women operate in combat roles even though they are technically barred or prohibited. Recent events in Iraq illustrate this blurring of the role between combatants and non-combatants all too starkly; as reported by CNN, "The Pentagon's policy banning women in combat is being tested in Iraq, where the lack of a defined front line and insurgents' guerrilla tactics expose female troops to deadly situations" (2005: np). The report, which was confirmed, went on to note that eleven female marines were killed in a single bombing, the largest loss of female soldiers in a single incident since the second World War. In short, because combat is so diffused in modern times, women are exposed to combat whether the military or the government admits it or not. This reality is quite significant for purposes of this paper; it is significant because the data which demonstrates that women should not be exposed to combat roles may also be a strong basis for restricting their non-combat roles as well. The evolution of combat, from single battlefields to urban centers, makes the combat versus non-combat distinctions highly misleading at times; therefore, it might very well be time to begin curtailing female non-combat roles in high-risk combat theaters as well. Human Rights Justifications Versus Medical Data There is no question that human rights are important. It is generally accepted that discrimination based upon race or gender is morally reprehensible; in the military context, however, one needs to examine whether the discrimination is based upon gender or some other more subtle physical and psychological capabilities. Indeed, to the detriment of both women and the military, the over-emphasis on human rights, to the point of excluding medical research from the debate, has fooled women into believing that they are the equal of men in all spheres, immune to certain physiological features and predispositions, and able to endure the job just as well as male soldiers. This type of analytical approach, ignoring data in order to prop up ostensibly human rights issues, is extraordinarily dangerous and misleading. An example of this type of approach was recently embraced by the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Virgina. In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an all-male admission policy at the Virginia Military Institute was unconstitutional. Rather then examining the medical and psychological literature, the Court instead focused solely on constitutional notions of Equal Protection. There was no discussion of the effects of military training, no discussion of the possibility of increased mental disorders, and no real discussion of the effects of such an atmosphere on the prospective female cadets. Instead, legal precedents dealing with segregation and discrimination were relied upon in order to declare the all-male admission policy unconstitutional. This case is important because its reasoning process is analogous to the questions involving women in actual combat. The Supreme Court's reasoning was poor because it relied upon tangential issues of Equal Protection rather than the medical realities of women in combat-oriented and adversarial situations; that the Supreme Court could resolve the case so easily, a 7-1 decision, illustrates the wholesale neglect of medical data. Moreover, as the following sections will demonstrate, the medical data is damning. Basic Combat Training One need not even wait until women are deployed to determine the difficulties that they will face in a combat atmosphere. Knapik et al examined training-related injuries among men and women during basic combat training (947). There was nothing extraordinary about these activities, in contrast to actual post-training combat missions and deployments. Indeed, seven hundred and fifty six men and four hundred and seventy four women were selected as research subjects. These subjects then underwent the standardized training activities prescribed for the U.S. Army Basic Combat Training. The findings demonstrated that even in very fundamental and standardized exercises, women suffered twice as many physical injuries as men. This study demonstrates rather clearly that women, in short, are more vulnerable than men physically. More troubling is the fact that this is a safer environment, combat is illusory rather than real, and that no one is actually killed because of physically weaker soldiers demanding assistance. There is, however, much more than mere physical limitations. Biological Disparities and Mental Disorders An additional study examined the biological underpinnings of posttraumatic stress disorder in women; the author, Gill, stated as a preliminary point that women generally suffer posttraumatic stress disorder at double the rate of men during the course of their lifetimes, that this increased rate is because of biological differences between men and women, and that certain events may cause alterations in the female physiology which renders them even more vulnerable to the onset of serious psychological ailments such as posttraumatic stress disorder and other major depressive disorders (47-48). Contrary to common assertions, therefore, there are very real biological differences of relevance between men and woman. If true, and the findings were persuasive, then women entering combat roles are increasing their risks of mental disorder at a rate much higher than male soldiers. That posttraumatic stress disorder is a natural consequence of combat exposure, as noted by Fontana et al (163), means that biology combined with combat is a disastrous combination. If one were to induce mental illness in a non-military setting they would probably be sued or jailed. Given the medical data, it is nearly criminal, not to mention highly immoral, to expose women to combat. Recent Generalized Findings In the United Kingdom, researchers have begun to extrapolate from these more individualized studies. Indeed, as recently as six months ago, Fear et al stated that There has been an increase in psychological symptoms, including alcohol misuse, in those not deployed to the Gulf or Iraq Wars, especially in women. The odds ratios for PTSR [5.82 (95% CI: 1.27-26.71)], multiple symptoms [8.49 (1.97-36.65)] and alcohol misuse [6.20 (2.09-18.37)] were higher in women than in men in the non-deployed samples. Psychological distress and chronic fatigue was more common in women, and alcohol misuse, was more common in men (2006: np). These findings are important because they confirm the data presented in the aforementioned studies and because they present the most recent medical data currently available. More importantly, the findings by Fear et al confirm increased mental disorders, substance abuse, and distress to non-combat roles as well. The only conclusion that one can draw is that women face greater medical risks than men. That they may be willing and able to function well does not negate the statistical findings. The costs are substantial and they are severe. The Military Mission and Feminist Sympathizers Recently, strangely enough, there has been an odd degree of agreement between military hardliners and feminists regarding the issue of women in combat. This is odd because feminists have traditionally viewed the issue from the human rights point of view whereas traditional military hardliners have viewed the issue from a narrower military point of view. The latter point of view, as exemplified by Mitchell, argues that women are distractions, that their presence demands sacrifices which demean military morale and readiness, and that women should be relegated to non-combat roles (78-79). Recent feminist scholarship, accepting the medical data and the special nature of the military mission, accepts Mitchell's basic premises. DeYoung, for instance, has broken free of the human rights straightjacket and acknowledged that placing women in combat is harmful and inappropriate, stating that, although she is an aggressive feminist, Harsh reality is overlooked to advance, at best, an abstract goal of improving women's political status by assigning women to combat fighting positions. Such political goals may have great appeal with an uninformed electorate which is predominantly femaleAssignment of women to near-combat and ground combat situations does not increase military effectiveness; it decreases such effectiveness, and such assignments are detrimental to women who must endure them (108). The nature of the military and the medical data is simply too strong to ignore. That leading feminists scholars are beginning to agree with military traditionalists warrants a more objective analysis of the women in combat issue. In addition, because combat is no longer conducted on single battlefields, it is also necessary to consider removing women from near-combat situations as well. Works Cited DeYoung, Marie, and Fenner, Lorry. Women in Combat: Civic Duty or Military Liability Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001. < http://books.google.com/booksvid=ISBN0878408630&id=WClLLY7RoGIC&d q=%22women+in+combat%22> Fear, Nicola, et al. "Women in novel occupational roles: mental health trends in the UK Armed Forces." International Journal of Epidemiology, Published by Oxford University Press Online, September, 2006. "Female troops in Iraq exposed to combat" CNN World. 28 June, 2005. < http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/25/women.combat/> Fontana, Alan. "Impact of Combat and Sexual Harassment on the Severity of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder among Men and Women Peacekeepers in Somalia." Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease. 188(3):163-169, March 2000. Gill, Jill. "Biological Underpinnings of Health Alterations in Women With PTSD: A Sex Disparity." Biological Research For Nursing, Vol. 7, No. 1, 44-54 (2005). Knapik, Joseph, et al. "Risk factors for training-related injuries among men and women in basic combat training." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 33(6):946- 954, June 2001. Mitchell, Brian. Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster. Regnery Publishing, 1999. < http://books.google.com/booksvid=ISBN0895263769&id=KLmrGAVy7vgC&d q=%22women+in+combat%22> Skaine, Rosemarie. Women at War: Gender Issues of Americans in Combat. McFarland & Company, 1999. < http://books.google.com/booksid=7f3FsHJ89NEC&dq=%22women+in+combat %22> United States v. Virgina (1996). 518 U.S. 515. Cornell Law School: Legal Information Institute. Read More