Don't denigrate units' ability just to 'correct' a perceived threat to women's careers.
8:03PM EST December 11. 2012 - The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been asymmetrical. There are no front lines. Improvised explosive devices and ambushes are used, anyone can be exposed to combat actions, and firefights can happen anywhere, often initiated by the enemy. This environment requires that male and female soldiers, regardless of position or branch, be trained and prepared to survive and win.
OUR VIEW: Open combat jobs to women
Another result? A controversy over the policy against allowing women into infantry units, which several female military members are contesting in a lawsuit. They argue that the policy hurts their long-term career prospects.
The basic proposition that women should serve their country just as men do is sound and wise. Our military is better for their contribution. Women have succeeded because high-tech and automation have made it possible to maximize their skills and abilities.
However, these factors have not significantly impacted the mission of the combat arms branches, especially the infantry, whose job is to close with and kill the enemy. Infantry members require tough continuous training, the proper mind-set, unit cohesion, focus, 100% dependence on everyone around them, and faith and confidence in leadership at all levels.
Executing missions requires small groups of soldiers who rely on physical strength and the strength of others to survive brutal conditions. They use rifles and what they can carry on their backs. Each soldier must be able to carry or drag an injured 200-pound person with mutilated legs to safety, and carry a 90-pound rucksack for 20 miles to go into a firefight.
Allowing women to be assigned to infantry combat would create many systemwide challenges. Despite the physical differences between men and women, there could be no reduction in physical requirements for infantry assignments. Nor could training for positions such as rangers be modified.
Commanders would face new issues on their plates, including personal male/female relationships that would develop, the tendency of men wanting to protect women, which would take focus from their mission, and the inability of some men to accept women as leaders in a combat unit.
The biggest danger of eliminating the combat exclusion to "correct" a perceived threat to women's careers is the impact on the unit's ability to succeed in its missions. This change could cost lives. If we make the mistake of degrading our fighting units' ability to accomplish their job, we do so at their, and our, peril.
Maj. Gen. Jim Comstock and Lt. Col. Al Jacobs, both retired, served in numerous Army infantry units, in combat and in peacetime.
Source: http://www.news.theusalinks.com/2012/12/12/opposing-view-changing-combat-policy-could-cost-lives/
0 comments:
Post a Comment