Academic Paper - Women in Combat

This is a paper I did for my English class my senior year of high school.

Women in Combat

            Throughout history women have played significant roles in the defense of their countries. Despite regulations many women have disguised themselves as male to fight in the wars, such as Frances Clayton in the Civil War; some even served as spies or Vivandieres. In more modern times, women have been able to join the military but are restricted from combat roles. However, in America’s most recent war with Iraq and Afghanistan, women were attached to combat units in order to search the women and children; by being attached to these units, the women were indeed exposed to hostile areas and situations. If women have been fighting for their countries, especially our own, since the establishment of armies then why is it that they are technically, and officially restricted from combat? Being in a combat situation means engaging in direct battle with the opposing armed forces. The current United States of America government regulations state that women may not be assigned a combat role, yet women have been consistently assigned to combat units as search personnel in hostile situations. They are armed with weapons, armor, and whatever is necessary to successfully complete the task, and they are expected to be able to fire upon the enemy as needed. This is combat whether the American government wants to define it that way or not. Women are fully capable to serve in combat roles. Historically women have proven it before, especially in American culture where women have fought in many of our nation’s wars, such as Mary Owens and Frances Clayton in the Civil War. Currently, the American military policies and regulations do not give combat credit despite women being placed in combat units due to how we must fight in the war, and in other countries women have been fully admitted to combat roles. There is also debate that women should not be in combat due to a lack of physical ability, and the psychological effect on the unit that could pose threatening life and death concerns; though, there is a solution to this refutation, and women can indeed pose the capability to serve in combat.

            Throughout American history there have been a countless number of women who have served on the front lines. Part of the reasoning behind it being countless is because “no official record has been found in the War Department showing specifically that any woman was ever enlisted in the military service of the United States as a member of any organization of the Regular or Volunteer Army at any time during the period of the civil war,” (Blanton, D.); but then again, the Army at the time had no regard for women soldiers and consistently tried to defame women soldiers, such as Owens, Greenhow and Clayton, despite recorded evidence. One of these pioneer women was Frances Clayton who disguised herself as a male, and served in both the Missouri artillery and cavalry units. Another was Mary Owens, who was discovered as a female when she was wounded in battle and was then dishonorably discharged from the Union army. In the Civil War there was also female spies such as Rose O’Neal Greenhow who “wanted to help the South any way she could,” (Hall, E.) and served as a spy for the Confederacy. The causes of these women who served for their country became noted in the gossip about the army life. Their successes in the war were note worthy, and even if their identity was discovered their mark on history was still in existence. Even in the post-civil war era women would “arise in both literature and the press,” (Blanton, D.). The women of this time period left a significant legacy of fighting for what they believed in and defending their nation. They disguised themselves to hold true to their determination and will power, now our nation’s policies and technology has taken away that ability and still prevent women from fighting for their nation despite having successfully done it before in our nation’s history.

            Currently, our nation upholds a straightforward policy of “Women aren't allowed in direct combat,” (Bumiller, E.). Despite this, women still fight in the front lines. During our war with Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the women who died were in combat situations. In programs such as the Female Engagement Team, which is a Marine Corps based unit, females are able to volunteer to be attached to a male unit to search Afghani women. By being in a program like this, the women soldiers are exposed to hostile combat situations. Women are brought home in coffins because of mortars, homemade bombs, ambushes, raids, Taliban attacks, and much more that are related to American conflicts. In war, “there is no male gender and no female gender, [all] gender [in combat] is soldier,” (Norland, R.); also, nowadays there are virtually no boundaries that establish front lines from “safe” areas. Despite not being attached to direct combat units, during the war women have been “killed or maimed on a semi-regular basis,” (Bohon, D.). These women are consistently laying their lives on the line to serve our nation, yet they receive no combat credit for their actions. In order to be eligible to promotions to the higher epsilons of ranks on both the officer and enlisted sides one must have combat time. Granted, there is a required percentage of female presence in these ranks; however, beyond the mandated numbers women have little opportunity to proceed to ranks such as General or E-9 pay grades. Exclusion from combat is a gender barrier that must be overcome in order for there to, finally, be gender equality.

            Those who are against women serving in combat, generally, hold the opinion that “the military cannot disregard differences in physical strength and social complications that would detract from the strength, discipline, and readiness of direct ground combat units,” (Bohon, D.). They say that the women would compromise the mission at hand, would put the unit at risk of failing, and possibly even be the reasoning behind those wounded and certain fatalities. According to congressional studies there are two main factors that provide their reasoning for maintaining the ban of women in combat: unit cohesion and combat considerations. Regarding unit cohesion it is stated that women would “serve as a distraction from the mission at hand.” The “inability to pull their own weight,” (Bohon, D.) opinion with the infamous ideal that men are the protectors and women are always deemed the ones in distress also serve as a problem. Plus, the obvious concern of potential inappropriate relations. But, this concerns a male-dominated force; if proper training and preparation was handled correctly and women equally assigned to attempt to even the ratio of men to women the psychological issue could be annihilated. Also, there is the factor of combat considerations. In combat, one must meet certain physical requirements. A combatant must rely on their strength and stamina to endure mission, as well as “survive, fight, and win,” (Bohon, D.). Concerns lye about where, and how a female can meet these requirements. Females have approximately three quarters aerobic capacity compared to males. They are also more likely to become injured, are shorter, and have less muscle mass. In addition, there is the factor of becoming pregnant before, or even during deployments; therefore making the women un-deployable.  However, the solution for this can be simple. Give women the opportunity to prove their physical capabilities at testing required for becoming eligible for training for combat roles. If they pass then they may continue to go through training, if not then they remain in their current position and still it gives them the opportunity to prove themselves for combat roles. Also, all members preparing to deploy could sign a contract regarding the overall physical matter of maintaining fit for combat. By doing these few things the gender barrier between men and women in the military could be slowly eroded.

            Women are barred from fighting in combat due to current military policies. However, it can be debated that women should be able to serve in direct combat roles. Throughout history, women have consistently fought disguised as males and served as spies for our nation. They have served our nation before and should be able to continue to do so as they have done before. In more modern conflicts women have been “unofficially” involved in hostile situations that have resulted in casualties, injuries and various other consequences of war. Units such as the Female Engagement Team are regularly exposed to hostile situations by having to search the Afghani women. Despite all these occurrences, women still do not get the combat credit. There is also the concern for the physical and psychological effects of co-ed units. Congressional research states that women would pose a threat to unit cohesion, and to the success of the military missions at hand. However, if specific training and procedures were established then those issues could be abolished. Our military is too “male-dominated,” (Collins, K.). Women need to be able to serve as they are called in the military. By destroying this barrier between men and women we may better seek gender equality. It is time that men are not the only ones portrayed as the protector, because women protect our nation too.