Debate Club

Should Women Be Allowed to Fight in Combat? >

Women Deserve Recognition for Their Role in Combat Operations

We don't have a choice but to recognize that women are in the battlefield

January 25, 2013

About Loretta Sanchez:

Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Democrat of California, is the second ranked Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee and founder and cochair of the Women in the Military Caucus.

We no longer have a choice. Fifteen percent of the military is comprised of women. Over 200,000 women have dedicated their lives to serve their country, 20,000 of whom served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the past, my efforts to make this policy change have been dismissed and often laughed at in Congress. In 2010, I proposed language to give the secretaries of the services the authorization to assign service members to units based on the needs of the unit, regardless of gender. This language would have given commanders the flexibility to address the needs of their unit regardless of a service person's gender.

Unfortunately, my language did not pass and was substituted with a report requirement, asking the Department of Defense to simply examine existing policies that restrict female members. This report spurred the Pentagon to seriously consider the new realities of today's battlefields.

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

As we all know, there is no longer a designated frontline that protects a soldier from being in combat. When a service man or woman is checking vehicles in Afghanistan, and the vehicle explodes due to a car bomb, that soldier is killed in combat. When female soldiers are the first ones to knock on doors in a neighborhood in Afghanistan due to cultural restrictions, they are essentially at the forefront of the mission.

We no longer have a choice but to recognize that female soldiers are in the battlefield and leading missions in nontraditional combat zones.

Until now, commanders were restricted to "assign" women to units below the brigade level whose primary mission was to engage in direct combat on the ground. However, in order to meet the needs of the unit, commanders would, essentially, place women in units that were restricted. The female soldiers would follow orders and perform duties, but would not receive the recognition or credit that they deserved, because it was against Department of Defense policy for them to perform those duties.

[Read the U.S. News Debate: Are Cuts to the Defense Budget Necessary?]

This policy has prevented the promotion of female service members, because combat experience is often required for career advancement. These servicewomen have fought in combat, but since it cannot be acknowledged, they are unable to use this experience to be promoted into many midgrade/senior roles.

It is the sacrifice and dedication of the service women that has brought about this historic change. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense believe it is now time to rescind this archaic policy. They believe the current policy not only restricts the department from expanding opportunities for service women, but also fails to recognize that women have and will continue to serve in combat.

We no longer have a choice but to recognize the real accomplishments of female soldiers.

Tags:
War in Afghanistan (2001-),
Iraq war (2003-2011),
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

#3
#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
President Obama's Code Pink Heckler Medea Benjamin Was Plain Rude

It's become acceptable for people to interrupt the president while he is delivering a formal speech on a deadly serious topic.

Obama Commerce Nominee Penny Pritzker’s Tax Problem

Obama’s Commerce Department nominee has some Romney-esque tax issues.

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

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.

Advertisement