Leon Panetta's announcement that the Defense Department would shortly eliminate all rules preventing women from serving in front-line combat roles has provoked comments from all over the political spectrum revealing just how much we don't understand about human nature, the role of the military and the nature of modern war. I expected this from the left but a surprising amount of it has come from the right. Panetta's policy change is a dangerous innovation that deserves far more skepticism than it has received.
The argument most often heard in favor of removing restrictions on women in combat is that the restrictions limit women's opportunity for advancement, particularly in the officer corps. This is the kind of attitude that one would expect to become prevalent during times of peace when even military life can devolve into a complacent routine that fosters the development of careerism. It's dismaying to see this kind of argument given credence at a time when American forces are still at war in Afghanistan. The military exists to support American policy and interests with the use or threat of use of force, not to provide a fulfilling and satisfying career path to anyone, man or woman.
In the days since the announcement I have seen the issue debated a number of times on television and the internet. Very rarely does anyone object to the proposal itself. Even on the right, commenters frequently approve of putting women in front-line combat roles provided, of course, that physical standards are not lowered to accommodate them. Their left-wing interlocutors agree and reassuringly predict that women will have to meet the same standards as men in order to qualify for combat units. Conservatives also occasionally caution that the presence of women in combat units might have a distracting psychological impact upon their male comrades-in-arms whose chivalric instincts might lead them to protect the women, to the detriment of the mission and the overall safety of the unit. But this possibility does not concern them enough to make them oppose the policy outright.
As I said before, I think this is a bad idea for two main reasons. Firstly, it's unrealistic to think that physical standards will not be lowered or that women will be treated the same as men in general. I will discuss this in more detail below. But even if we could be assured that the military would not relax its standards, there are adverse psychological effects that cannot be ignored.
Military training and tradition are designed to encourage a bond between warriors commonly referred to as "unit cohesion." The Greeks, who had at least four different words for "love," would call the bond between unit members philia, or brotherly love. Philia is inclusive and outward looking. It encourages those who share it to support each other in pursuit of the common good.
Armies going back to ancient times have recognized the critical role that unit cohesion plays in maximizing the combat effectiveness of a force, even more critical than the martial prowess of the individual soldier. The barbarian tribes of Europe produced outstanding fighters. It used to be said that one barbarian could defeat ten Roman legionnaires; but that one thousand Romans could defeat ten thousand barbarians. The difference was the training and discipline that formed Roman soldiers into cohesive units that were far stronger than the sum of their parts.
Unit cohesion has played a key role in many battles where small disciplined forces outfought far more numerous foes: the Greeks at Thermopylae and the British at Rorke's Drift are but two. The nation of Israel has survived to this date only because the esprit de corps and training of their forces have more than compensated for the overwhelming numerical superiority of the armies arrayed against them. Perhaps Napoleon put it best when he said that "in war moral power is to physical as three parts out of four."
The introduction of women (or gays for that matter) into the unit risks the development of romantic love, or eros as the Greeks would call it. Eros is exclusive and discriminatory. Partners in a romantic relationship naturally favor each other over those around them. This creates a disruption in unit cohesion that can be fatal under combat conditions. Try to imagine an infantry squad or platoon containing a romantically-linked pair, possibly with one or more rejected suitors. The possibilities should give us pause considering that lives are at stake.
Another factor that can damage unit cohesion is the notion that one or more members of the unit are not pulling their weight or are otherwise receiving special treatment. Most people I have heard discussing this issue have taken it for granted that standards, physical and otherwise, must not be compromised to accommodate the entry of women into combat units. And no doubt the authorities will assure the public that no such reduction of standards is contemplated. But history is not encouraging in this regard. The fact is that throughout the armed forces men are held to higher physical standards than women.
In many cases this is not a serious issue. There are many jobs within the military and not all of them subject the member to the same degree of physical stress. The U.S. military includes the army ranger hiking the mountains of Afghanistan, but it also includes the airman moving cargo with a forklift and the navy yeoman making sure that every sailor on his base receives his full pay and benefits. But at the tip of the spear, that infantryman in direct contact with the enemy, the environment is harsh and unforgiving. And no matter how hi-tech the military has become, war is still an endurance contest. In fact, advances in technology have done much to increase the effectiveness of the infantryman but they haven't really eased his burden.
But several commenters, with little or no direct knowledge of the military, have implied that modern warfare is somehow less physically demanding than in the past. Juan Williams made some vague comment about how "it's all computers" now. Even Charles Krauthammer, normally quite sensible, said that we're not talking about Agincourt and that our soldiers don't have to wear chain mail. Charles obviously hasn't heard that the modern infantryman's kit, particularly when dismounted, weighs more than a medieval suit of armor.
The brutal truth is that an infantryman's survival depends on his ability to carry more - more ammunition, more armor, more water, more rations, more medical supplies. If technology makes any of this stuff lighter, than that just means the soldier can carry more of it. I'm sure no soldier wants to find himself at the mercy of the enemy because he didn't bring enough ammo with him. Sadly I think that if this policy change goes forward, there will be pressure from people with little understanding of the requirements of combat to alter standards to allow for greater female participation in front-line units.
No comments:
Post a Comment