Enlisted Women Opposed To Combat Assignments

[sfc_darrel]

Enlisted Women Opposed To Combat Assignments
Center for Military Readiness
Monday, July 21, 2003

Feminist activists and their friends in the media keep insisting that military women strongly desire the ?opportunity? to serve in land combat units. But is that true? Opinion surveys done by the Army indicate that the majority of military women are strongly opposed to combat assignments -- especially if it means being forced into combat on an ?equal? basis with men.
According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), quoting a study done by the Rand Corporation in 1998, only 10 percent of female privates and corporals agreed that ?women should be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like men.?

The Army Research Institute (ARI), in a series of surveys since 1993, also found that most military women want nothing to do with combat assignments. In 2001, for example, Question #60 in the ARI ?Sample Survey of Military Personnel? asked military people whether women should be assigned to direct ground combat (DGC), which was defined as? engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew-served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force?s personnel.?

ARI asked whether current policy ?should be changed so that females can also be ?involuntarily assigned? [to combat units].? The results, which should have given the Army pause, indicated that only one-tenth of enlisted women (10 percent) wanted the Army to force female soldiers into combat units on an involuntary basis. The figure for enlisted men -- many of whom were found in a more detailed independent survey to be in favor of women in combat for vindictive reasons -- was 23 percent.

A bar graph slide prepared by ARI further indicated that among enlisted personnel, low percentages in favor of women in combat on the same basis as men ?had remained stable since the fall of 1993.? Among female and male officers, levels of support -- 19 percent and 20 percent, respectively?were higher but far less than a majority. Even when ARI?s questionnaire inquired about combat assignments on a voluntary basis -- a hypothetical idea that is not a workable option --responses in favor were not much higher.

Voluntary Combat

Only 26 percent of enlisted women were in favor of voluntary combat for women, as opposed to 16 percent of the men. Only 29 percent and 12 percent of female and male officers, respectively, were in favor of voluntary combat assignments for women.

When the question was asked in terms of ?voluntary [combat] assignments for both males and females,? percentages in favor ranged from a high of 31 percent (enlisted women) to a low of 7 percent(male officers).

None of these figures reflected a groundswell of support for the feminist agenda being advocated by the former Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services.

Until the DACOWITS Charter was allowed to expire in 2002, the committee operated as a tax-funded feminist lobby for women in combat, primarily composed of civilian women. A few ambitious female officers assigned to advise the DACOWITS seemed primarily motivated by careerism and the potential opportunity for a future woman to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

What Do Women Want ?

Clearly, dismal survey results on the women in combat issue presented a problem for Pentagon feminists. The answer to the problem was simple. If you don?t want to hear the answer, stop asking the question.

In the year 2002, the ARI survey dropped the question about women in combat, and substituted queries about less consequential matters, such as the opinions of military personnel regarding personal computers and the Internet. The omission sends the clear message that Army officials simply do not care what men and women think about new combat rules under which they must live?and possibly die.

Is there any other major defense issue that is handled by Pentagon officials with politically correct blinders firmly in place? ?After action? reports about every aspect of the Battle of Iraq are being examined and discussed publicly.

By contrast, data on certain ?sensitive? matters, such as the number of personnel losses and evacuations that occurred during the war due to pregnancy or inadequate dependent care plans has not been ?captured? yet.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is trying to transform the military into a stronger, more cohesive and flexible force that can be deployed anywhere faster. All the more reason to insist that the right questions be asked about the extent and length of predictable personnel losses in all of the services.

America is defended not by ships, planes, and high-tech weapons on land, but by young men and women who volunteer to serve their country. Their views should be respected and not ignored. Even if polls and surveys among military personnel showed overwhelming majorities in support of women in combat, President George W. Bush must direct the Pentagon to implement sound priorities that put the interests of national security first.