Women Warriors: A Good Idea?

From FoxNews:

Report: Mullen Backs Women Serving on Submarines

Female sailors can broaden their role in the Navy by serving on submarines, an activity currently prohibited by the Armed Service, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has advised the Senate Armed Services Committee.

According to Defensetech.org, a site run by Military.com, a group boasting a membership of 10 million veterans and active duty forces, Adm. Michael Mullen told senators in a recent survey that he's long been an advocate for improving diversity in the Armed Forces.

"I believe we should continue to broaden opportunities for women. One policy I would like to see changed is the one barring their service aboard submarines," he added.

The policy change would mark a huge shift for the Navy, whose submarines have been devoid of female sailors even though women began flying fighter jets and performing other seagoing combat roles 15 years ago.

This motion of advocacy, coming from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on behalf of women in the armed forces, more specifically in the Navy, allows for a segue into a broader discussion on the question of women in combat. To do so, I will borrow liberally from an excellent piece that appeared in National Review back in 2003, written by Kate O'Beirne, entitled "An Army of Jessica's: About Women in Combat: Let's fight. Hard." (Of course, women have demonstrated great heroism in battles past and are sure to do the same in the future. However, the wider and almost universal acceptance and incorporation of women in the military is a worthy subject of debate, although it is a sensitive one to broach nowadays because unfair implications of sexism, male chauvinism etc., are immediately unleashed on anyone brandishing the temerity to argue the more traditional stance.) Here are some of O'Beirne's observations:

Overplaying women's exploits permits proponents of gender-integrated combat to discount the masculine traits that the history of warfare shows to be vital to military success. In an article for the Buffalo Law Review, Wayne State law professor Kingsley R. Browne examines the historic link between masculinity and warfare: "Be a man" was the core value by which combat soldiers judged each other, according to Samuel Stouffer's classic study of soldiers in WWII; as Browne notes, Northwestern professor Charles Moskos--America's leading military sociologist--explains that one of the few ways to get men in combat to behave so irrationally as to risk getting killed is to appeal to their masculinity. A study of the Spanish Civil War found that the greatest fear of men facing combat for the first time was that they would turn out to be cowards. Historian S.L.A. Marshall found that a man in combat will overcome his fear and do what's required because he risks losing "the one thing that he is likely to value more highly than his life--his reputation as a man among other men." Browne concludes: "If the need to prove one's manliness is an essential motivator of combat personnel, what motivates women?"

A 1985 Navy study found that large majorities of women were unable to perform any of the eight critical shipboard tasks that virtually all men could handle...In her 2000 book, The Kinder Gentler Military, Stephanie Gutmann recounted how the harsh demands of basic training have been largely eliminated to make the experience more female-friendly. With basic training now gender-integrated in all the services except the Marines, the emphasis is increasingly on self-esteem and positive motivation. Recruits are shown videos that reassure them that "anybody can get through boot camp" and that it's "O.K. to cry." A commission appointed by defense secretary William Cohen...concluded that basic training should be separate because integrated training resulted in "less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training programs.

Margaret Thatcher, in her must-read book entitled Statecraft, echoes many of the points made here by O'Beirne. The Iron Lady also highlights the enormous financial inconvenience that results from having to re-outfit Navy vessels with female friendly facilities, all in the name of living up to modern notions of equality. She also raises a good question: Should grenades be made lighter and less deadly, allowing women to throw them far enough so as to not incur injury from the explosion? For, if grenades are too heavy (and more potent as a result), only the men are able to hurdle them far enough to avoid getting hurt. Historically, culturally and practically speaking (perhaps most relevant for winning a fight), impressive arguments can be marshaled in defense of an all-male military, at least in terms of combat roles.