Debate Club

Should Women Be Allowed to Fight in Combat? >

Putting Women in Combat Is a Disastrous Decision

Women in combat don't allow the military to be the most effective war-fighting institution possible

January 25, 2013

About Kingsley Browne:

Kingsley Browne is a professor at Wayne State University Law School and author of Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence that Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars.

The decision to open ground-combat positions to women is seriously misguided, as evidenced by the fact that the policy decision precedes the feasibility assessment. A senior Defense Department official announced that the goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field," when the goal should be to have the most effective war-fighting institution possible.

The physical differences between men and women are obvious, as few women have the strength, speed, or aerobic capacity of even the average man. The British military determined that only 1 in 100 trained female soldiers had the physical capacity to function in infantry and armor units. Then, of course, there's pregnancy, which leaves women three to four times as likely as men to be unable to deploy and leads many, once deployed, to be medevaced and thereby lost to their units.

[See a collection of political cartoons on defense spending.]

Beyond individual sex differences are the equally important effects of adding women to male combat groups. Combat units are intensely cooperative and placing a scarce resource (women) within them creates a disruptive competition. Moreover, trust is the foundation of cohesion, and men are disinclined to trust women in dangerous situations, worried that they will lack either the will or the wherewithal to back them up. The rough camaraderie that men engage in to build cohesion will lead to sexual harassment charges by women, so women will be excluded from these important activities.

Women are now promoted as fast or faster than men. Although there are relatively few female admirals and generals, there are also relatively few female CEOs in the private sector. Sex differences in intense career commitment are more important than the combat exclusion. Men join the infantry to fight, whereas we hear now that women want to join the infantry for their careers. This decision will impose new pressure on the many career military women who do not want to serve in combat, likely discouraging many women from entering the military. Although women have been involved in combat skirmishes, ground-combat service requires sustained combat, sometimes over the course of days or weeks, often under loads substantially exceeding that of the soldier of World War II.

This is a disastrous decision made by people (a re-elected president and an outgoing secretary of defense) who will not have to bear its consequences. Instead theywill be suffered by the soldier on the ground, and in some cases they are likely to be fatal.

Tags:
Department of Defense,
military
Other Arguments
#1

Yes — Lifting the combat ban is a sign of the military's evolution

KATIE MILLER, Special Assistant at the Center for American Progress

#2

Yes — Servicewomen suffered from the old policy—and so did our military

ARIELA MIGDAL, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project

#4
#5

Yes — Women serving our country deserve equal rights

RACHEL NATELSON, Legal Director of the Service Women's Action Network

#6

Yes — Women with skills for ground combat should be steered towards other parts of the military

MICHAEL O'HANLON, Director of Research for Brookings's 21st Century Defense Initiative

Reader Comments ()

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.

Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.

You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

God Bless America and the Boy Scouts

The Fund does the right thing by pushing the Boy Scouts to lift its ban on gay members.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

Advertisement