There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on Tuesday when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the immediate rescinding of the long-standing military policy of restricting Combat Arms jobs to men. You can read the entire memo here. The decision was endorsed by the Joint Chiefs, and comes at the twilight of Panetta's term as Secretary of Defense.
While the restriction is lifted immediately, the Armed Forces have some time to implement the new policy. Each branch must submit their plan of action by May 15, 2013. Integration "will occur as expeditiously as possible...but must be completed no later than January 1, 2016."
The decision is not final, of course, as all actions of this sort must be reviewed by Congress. Should any branch find that a specific job not be suitable for women, they can submit their recommendation that that job remain closed, and Congress will have the final say.
So, what to make of this shockingly fast turn of events? Will this be the end of the military as we know it? Will the infantry descend into sex-fueled chaos, leaving us weak and defenseless before our enemies? Will freedom be destroyed because there's nobody left at home to make the sammiches?!
Probably not. Other armed forces have employed women in combat roles, and history hasn't imploded yet (I'm looking at you, Israel and the Celts...which would actually be a really cool name for a band). There are obstacles, however, that should be taken seriously when the branches make their plans.
Problem 1: Physical standards
For those of you who are not familiar, the military employs a double standard currently between men and women. A man of my age group must run the 2 mile in 17:00 in order to barely pass. A woman has 20:30. She only has to do 17 pushups, compared to my 39. Neither of those standards are high, but the standard held for women is woefully inadequate when it comes to the demands of combat.
If women are to do the same job as a man, then they must be able to maintain the same standard. Here at least the military seems to already be on the ball. The defense official who announced the policy change said that "it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral."
My biggest concern here is that these "gender neutral" standards will be a compromise, rather than an absolute assessment. I can already see the lax standards being relaxed further, under the rallying cry of "Fairness!" (more on that later). More than that, they will likely not be comprehensive. After all, it is no good if a 130 lb. woman can do the same number of pushups as me if she can't also carry an ammo can, or throw me on her back and run 50 meters if I get shot. What happens if we have to march a few miles before we make an attack? Will she be able to carry all her water, food, armor, ammo, mortar shells, extra ammo for the machine guns, etc., etc., etc? Or will some of that weight be shifted to me?
How you overcome it: The same standard for every applicant who applies to a job. A standard specific to that job. A true, accurate standard, that does not care who can make it. The standard only cares about what is necessary to do the job well.
Problem 2: Mental training
If you've ever asked yourself "I wonder if being an infantry soldier is like Call of Duty?"
The answer is: "Absolutely, except add in the part where Leonidas kicks that dude down the well. It's just like that."
My point is, I'm not talking about what women are capable of doing. It's established fact that the weaker sex is all weak and stuff and can't possibly perform the death defying stunts that I must do on a regular basis. I'm actually talking about the menfolk here.
Specifically, the mental instincts of protection that are present in a large portion of the male population. Many men react differently to seeing women in danger than they do with men. Whether this response is biological, conditioned socially, or both is irrelevant. The fact is, it is there. Look to LCOL Grossman's book On Killing:
Unfortunately, it isn't considered politically correct to suggest this sort of reaction might exist, or if it does, that it's not really a bad thing. "Shouldn't you want to protect your fellow soldiers?", goes the refrain of the civilian.
The answer is no, at least, not always. For example, if I am in the middle of an assault on an objective and my best friend gets shot in the face right next to me, I'm going to be understandably shook up. I am going to want to help him, drag him to safety, do whatever I can do save him. These are all normal, healthy reactions, and they are what I absolutely must not do if I want my friend to live. In this situation, the best thing I can do for him is to ruthlessly murder the enemy as quickly as possible so I can have time to save his life later. If I stop the forward momentum of the attack and turn the battle into a casualty evacuation, more people will die.
How you overcome it: One word: Training. The military trains soldiers to turn off instinct all the time. Most notably, the instinct against killing. Despite the fact that humans are extremely aggressive we also have a built in block against actually killing our fellow man. The military has, through decades of practice, learned how to teach soldiers to turn this switch off and allow them to kill, but only under very specific stimuli. The instinct is not gone; soldiers who return home are no more likely to kill than anyone else. But when exposed to the situation they were trained to deal with, they are able to overcome it upwards of 90% of the time.
If this protective instinct does in fact exist there is reason to believe it can be similarly dealt with in a way that leaves the instinct intact back home. After all, we don't want to raise a generation of soldiers who are even more likely to beat their wives than they already are, because that would mean I'd have to sit through even more powerpoint presentation on that subject, and I swear to the almighty raptor Jesus if I have to sit through one more powerpoint presentation I will literally punch a baby.
But we should be able to make it so that soldiers are able to deal with it if they see a woman injured, at least enough so that they can accomplish the mission.
Problem 3: Logistics
"An Army marches on its stomach."
One of the realities of warfare is that you are only as good as your logistical framework allows you to be. The toughest Spartan warrior won't be much of a threat if he hasn't eaten in three weeks and has the plague. In the field, logistics get tougher. Every drop of water, every scrap of food, every needed bullet must be carefully planned, and then carefully delivered to the wrong FOB because they read the map upside down.
Women are more difficult to supply in the field for long periods of time due to their biological needs. They are more prone to infection due to certain...areas...on their...you know...Anyway. Sanitation is more important there, and more sanitation requires more water. It also requires something to deal with that special time of the month, because as Science has told us, their menstruations attract bears.
How you overcome it: By not being obstinate and actually admitting this is a problem. It means that the supplying of ground soldiers just became more difficult to achieve. Not impossible, just a bit more complicated.
The bear thing is pretty much insurmountable though.
Problem 4: Order & Discipline
Leading soldiers is kind of like parenting children. Really big, obnoxious, stupid children with bad potty mouths and poor grammar.
Sometimes your soldiers do well. You need to praise them, let them know they're succeeding. Sometimes, they need some help, and then you need to patiently instruct them, usually by cursing as much as possible.
And sometimes they just need to have the hell beat out of them. At those times you pull them aside, away from their peers, and perform corrective action until they get it straight. Most times you do it privately so as not to embarrass them in front of others.
What happens when I pull a woman aside, alone, for a time to do corrective action? What happens if I'm accused of impropriety? Hell, even typing "corrective action" like that sounds like a really dirty euphemism. I can tell you what would happen in the current military: SGT Karim would become PVT Karim faster than you can say "wrongful accusation". So I bring a witness. What if we're both accused of being in on it together? So I bring a third? A fourth? Accusations aside, will I be accused of being "insensitive" if I yell and curse at her the same as I do for my other soldiers (which actually has a combat related purpose, believe it or not)?
I won't even go into the fact that there's going to be banging going on of gigantic proportions. You put that many young, irresponsible men and women in close quarters together than there is going to be an all-out boner fest of epic proportions. If you think I'm wrong, allow me to kindly direct your attention to Olympic Village, or to every college campus ever.
How you overcome it: By realizing that equal treatment means equal treatment, as in the same. By making it so the accusation of impropriety does not absolutely mean guilt. By walking that fine line between taking those sorts of things seriously (because they do happen), while also not letting them be used as a blackmail tool to undermine good order.
I firmly believe that the vast majority female soldiers are professionals like any other. It isn't the majority of professionals I'm worried about, it is the minority that always screws it up for everyone else.
Not sure what to do about the boners. Cold showers?
Problem 5: "Fairness"
We must understand one thing above all others. One thing needs to be absolutely clear in every person's mind as we go through this process. That thing is this: When it comes to the military, what is "fair" ranks a distant second to what is effective. This flies in the face of what many of us are taught as kids (and, indeed, what I teach my own kids). We at least try to make things as fair as possible, because it is the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, we have to realize that the military exists for one purpose. That purpose is to win wars. To kill people. To break stuff. To just generally be an asshole and make a mess in someone else's yard. And when it comes to that sort of job, being a fair fighter is a pit stop along the way to being a dead one.
I am not saying fairness should be disregarded. By all means, if we have two options available to us that are equally effective and one is more fair than the other, let's be fair about it. But if it's a choice between fairness and effectiveness, effectiveness needs to win. Every time.
With that in mind, let's project into the future. The first few women who join the Infantry are going to start where everyone else did: as privates. That means that they will be in subservient positions, surrounded by men who outrank them, who have more experience than them, and are just plain better at their jobs than they are. Not one of their superiors will be female.
And that needs to be okay.
It takes time for a soldier to develop the skills necessary to lead other soldiers in battle. That means that, for a while, there won't be any women who are qualified to lead. Not because they're women, not because they are stupid or incompetent. They won't be leaders for the same reason we don't let male graduates of basic training instantly become leaders (unless those graduates also happen to have taken a series of useless classes in college too, in which case we will instantly put them in charge of entire platoons, cuz you know, America). In time, they will gain the experience to earn promotions, and at that time those promotions should absolutely be given.
The danger is that we will rush the integration, that we will decide that women need to be in leadership positions right away, and so we promote those who aren't ready, or move a Staff Sergeant used to managing a team of cooks into an Infantry Squad Leader position and expect them to succeed. Some will, but most won't, and it will lead to a weaker force. Bad leaders train bad soldiers who become bad leaders.
How we overcome this: By managing our expectations and not expecting wholesale change overnight. The all-male military is a tradition that goes back centuries. Changing it will take time, if we want to do it right.
In closing, I actually part from many of my compatriots in my beliefs. I think that this has the potential to be a very good move, one that could strengthen the military as a whole by making sure everyone who really wants to be a soldier, can be. The problems I've put forward, and those that I didn't think of, are real, but they aren't insurmountable. With careful consideration and thoughtful planning, they can be dealt with.
See, my beef with this thing whole thing isn't even about women being in the infantry. It's not about me doubting that they can succeed there, because I have the utmost confidence they can.
I just also have the utmost confidence that the Army will screw it up in the most extravagant way imaginable.
While the restriction is lifted immediately, the Armed Forces have some time to implement the new policy. Each branch must submit their plan of action by May 15, 2013. Integration "will occur as expeditiously as possible...but must be completed no later than January 1, 2016."
The decision is not final, of course, as all actions of this sort must be reviewed by Congress. Should any branch find that a specific job not be suitable for women, they can submit their recommendation that that job remain closed, and Congress will have the final say.
So, what to make of this shockingly fast turn of events? Will this be the end of the military as we know it? Will the infantry descend into sex-fueled chaos, leaving us weak and defenseless before our enemies? Will freedom be destroyed because there's nobody left at home to make the sammiches?!
Probably not. Other armed forces have employed women in combat roles, and history hasn't imploded yet (I'm looking at you, Israel and the Celts...which would actually be a really cool name for a band). There are obstacles, however, that should be taken seriously when the branches make their plans.
Problem 1: Physical standards
For those of you who are not familiar, the military employs a double standard currently between men and women. A man of my age group must run the 2 mile in 17:00 in order to barely pass. A woman has 20:30. She only has to do 17 pushups, compared to my 39. Neither of those standards are high, but the standard held for women is woefully inadequate when it comes to the demands of combat.
If women are to do the same job as a man, then they must be able to maintain the same standard. Here at least the military seems to already be on the ball. The defense official who announced the policy change said that "it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral."
My biggest concern here is that these "gender neutral" standards will be a compromise, rather than an absolute assessment. I can already see the lax standards being relaxed further, under the rallying cry of "Fairness!" (more on that later). More than that, they will likely not be comprehensive. After all, it is no good if a 130 lb. woman can do the same number of pushups as me if she can't also carry an ammo can, or throw me on her back and run 50 meters if I get shot. What happens if we have to march a few miles before we make an attack? Will she be able to carry all her water, food, armor, ammo, mortar shells, extra ammo for the machine guns, etc., etc., etc? Or will some of that weight be shifted to me?
How you overcome it: The same standard for every applicant who applies to a job. A standard specific to that job. A true, accurate standard, that does not care who can make it. The standard only cares about what is necessary to do the job well.
Problem 2: Mental training
If you've ever asked yourself "I wonder if being an infantry soldier is like Call of Duty?"
The answer is: "Absolutely, except add in the part where Leonidas kicks that dude down the well. It's just like that."
My point is, I'm not talking about what women are capable of doing. It's established fact that the weaker sex is all weak and stuff and can't possibly perform the death defying stunts that I must do on a regular basis. I'm actually talking about the menfolk here.
Specifically, the mental instincts of protection that are present in a large portion of the male population. Many men react differently to seeing women in danger than they do with men. Whether this response is biological, conditioned socially, or both is irrelevant. The fact is, it is there. Look to LCOL Grossman's book On Killing:
In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.It is true that not every man may have this sort of reaction. It is also true that the military deals in the aggregate, and if a significant percentage of men react this way then it is worth addressing.
Unfortunately, it isn't considered politically correct to suggest this sort of reaction might exist, or if it does, that it's not really a bad thing. "Shouldn't you want to protect your fellow soldiers?", goes the refrain of the civilian.
The answer is no, at least, not always. For example, if I am in the middle of an assault on an objective and my best friend gets shot in the face right next to me, I'm going to be understandably shook up. I am going to want to help him, drag him to safety, do whatever I can do save him. These are all normal, healthy reactions, and they are what I absolutely must not do if I want my friend to live. In this situation, the best thing I can do for him is to ruthlessly murder the enemy as quickly as possible so I can have time to save his life later. If I stop the forward momentum of the attack and turn the battle into a casualty evacuation, more people will die.
How you overcome it: One word: Training. The military trains soldiers to turn off instinct all the time. Most notably, the instinct against killing. Despite the fact that humans are extremely aggressive we also have a built in block against actually killing our fellow man. The military has, through decades of practice, learned how to teach soldiers to turn this switch off and allow them to kill, but only under very specific stimuli. The instinct is not gone; soldiers who return home are no more likely to kill than anyone else. But when exposed to the situation they were trained to deal with, they are able to overcome it upwards of 90% of the time.
If this protective instinct does in fact exist there is reason to believe it can be similarly dealt with in a way that leaves the instinct intact back home. After all, we don't want to raise a generation of soldiers who are even more likely to beat their wives than they already are, because that would mean I'd have to sit through even more powerpoint presentation on that subject, and I swear to the almighty raptor Jesus if I have to sit through one more powerpoint presentation I will literally punch a baby.
But we should be able to make it so that soldiers are able to deal with it if they see a woman injured, at least enough so that they can accomplish the mission.
Problem 3: Logistics
"An Army marches on its stomach."
One of the realities of warfare is that you are only as good as your logistical framework allows you to be. The toughest Spartan warrior won't be much of a threat if he hasn't eaten in three weeks and has the plague. In the field, logistics get tougher. Every drop of water, every scrap of food, every needed bullet must be carefully planned, and then carefully delivered to the wrong FOB because they read the map upside down.
Women are more difficult to supply in the field for long periods of time due to their biological needs. They are more prone to infection due to certain...areas...on their...you know...Anyway. Sanitation is more important there, and more sanitation requires more water. It also requires something to deal with that special time of the month, because as Science has told us, their menstruations attract bears.
How you overcome it: By not being obstinate and actually admitting this is a problem. It means that the supplying of ground soldiers just became more difficult to achieve. Not impossible, just a bit more complicated.
The bear thing is pretty much insurmountable though.
Problem 4: Order & Discipline
Leading soldiers is kind of like parenting children. Really big, obnoxious, stupid children with bad potty mouths and poor grammar.
Sometimes your soldiers do well. You need to praise them, let them know they're succeeding. Sometimes, they need some help, and then you need to patiently instruct them, usually by cursing as much as possible.
And sometimes they just need to have the hell beat out of them. At those times you pull them aside, away from their peers, and perform corrective action until they get it straight. Most times you do it privately so as not to embarrass them in front of others.
What happens when I pull a woman aside, alone, for a time to do corrective action? What happens if I'm accused of impropriety? Hell, even typing "corrective action" like that sounds like a really dirty euphemism. I can tell you what would happen in the current military: SGT Karim would become PVT Karim faster than you can say "wrongful accusation". So I bring a witness. What if we're both accused of being in on it together? So I bring a third? A fourth? Accusations aside, will I be accused of being "insensitive" if I yell and curse at her the same as I do for my other soldiers (which actually has a combat related purpose, believe it or not)?
I won't even go into the fact that there's going to be banging going on of gigantic proportions. You put that many young, irresponsible men and women in close quarters together than there is going to be an all-out boner fest of epic proportions. If you think I'm wrong, allow me to kindly direct your attention to Olympic Village, or to every college campus ever.
How you overcome it: By realizing that equal treatment means equal treatment, as in the same. By making it so the accusation of impropriety does not absolutely mean guilt. By walking that fine line between taking those sorts of things seriously (because they do happen), while also not letting them be used as a blackmail tool to undermine good order.
I firmly believe that the vast majority female soldiers are professionals like any other. It isn't the majority of professionals I'm worried about, it is the minority that always screws it up for everyone else.
Not sure what to do about the boners. Cold showers?
Problem 5: "Fairness"
We must understand one thing above all others. One thing needs to be absolutely clear in every person's mind as we go through this process. That thing is this: When it comes to the military, what is "fair" ranks a distant second to what is effective. This flies in the face of what many of us are taught as kids (and, indeed, what I teach my own kids). We at least try to make things as fair as possible, because it is the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, we have to realize that the military exists for one purpose. That purpose is to win wars. To kill people. To break stuff. To just generally be an asshole and make a mess in someone else's yard. And when it comes to that sort of job, being a fair fighter is a pit stop along the way to being a dead one.
I am not saying fairness should be disregarded. By all means, if we have two options available to us that are equally effective and one is more fair than the other, let's be fair about it. But if it's a choice between fairness and effectiveness, effectiveness needs to win. Every time.
With that in mind, let's project into the future. The first few women who join the Infantry are going to start where everyone else did: as privates. That means that they will be in subservient positions, surrounded by men who outrank them, who have more experience than them, and are just plain better at their jobs than they are. Not one of their superiors will be female.
And that needs to be okay.
It takes time for a soldier to develop the skills necessary to lead other soldiers in battle. That means that, for a while, there won't be any women who are qualified to lead. Not because they're women, not because they are stupid or incompetent. They won't be leaders for the same reason we don't let male graduates of basic training instantly become leaders (unless those graduates also happen to have taken a series of useless classes in college too, in which case we will instantly put them in charge of entire platoons, cuz you know, America). In time, they will gain the experience to earn promotions, and at that time those promotions should absolutely be given.
The danger is that we will rush the integration, that we will decide that women need to be in leadership positions right away, and so we promote those who aren't ready, or move a Staff Sergeant used to managing a team of cooks into an Infantry Squad Leader position and expect them to succeed. Some will, but most won't, and it will lead to a weaker force. Bad leaders train bad soldiers who become bad leaders.
How we overcome this: By managing our expectations and not expecting wholesale change overnight. The all-male military is a tradition that goes back centuries. Changing it will take time, if we want to do it right.
In closing, I actually part from many of my compatriots in my beliefs. I think that this has the potential to be a very good move, one that could strengthen the military as a whole by making sure everyone who really wants to be a soldier, can be. The problems I've put forward, and those that I didn't think of, are real, but they aren't insurmountable. With careful consideration and thoughtful planning, they can be dealt with.
See, my beef with this thing whole thing isn't even about women being in the infantry. It's not about me doubting that they can succeed there, because I have the utmost confidence they can.
I just also have the utmost confidence that the Army will screw it up in the most extravagant way imaginable.
No comments:
Post a Comment