thedrifter
01-17-06, 12:55 PM
January 23, 2006
Women in combat debate yields a minor measure
DoD must give 30 days’ notice before changes
By Rick Maze
Times staff writer
A year of congressional debate over the role of women in combat — a debate that grew quite pointed at times — ended with lawmakers placing only a modest limitation on the Pentagon.
Under a compromise included in the 2006 defense authorization bill, lawmakers require the military to provide 30 days’ notice before making any change in ground-combat exclusion rules for female service members.
There are no indications that any policy changes are being considered, so the 30-day-notice requirement has no immediate impact other than to mark the end of a controversy that began last year over concerns that women deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom were in direct ground combat roles, a change in the combat exclusion policy set in 1994.
At issue was whether the Army, and possibly the Marine Corps, was putting women into direct combat units in Iraq.
Initially, the House Armed Services Committee voted last spring to specifically exclude women from forward combat units, but the House of Representatives, under pressure from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army officials, watered down the bill provision to only demand 60 days of advance notice before any changes were made in the combat exclusion policy.
The requirement for advance notice was further cut to 30 days in negotiations with the Senate.
The 30-day rule, recommended by the Defense Department, is not 30 calendar days, but 30 “legislative” days in which Congress is in continuous session, with no more than three days of break between meetings.
Given that the congressional calendar has frequent weeklong breaks, this may happen only four or five times a year.
‘It’s not satisfactory’
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, who blew the whistle on the fact some female soldiers were being assigned to forward combat support companies in apparent violation of the 1994 policy, said she is unhappy with the outcome.
“It is not satisfactory,” she said. “It is an unacceptable situation. It is unfair to women and unfair to men.”
Donnelly said she generally supports Rumsfeld but believes he is making a mistake in this case.
“He intervened in what should have been a congressional debate when there is obvious evidence that the combat exclusion law is not being followed,” she said.
“They are in violation of the law right now,” Donnelly said, referring to the possibility that women are being assigned or attached to company-level units that would put them in direct combat roles.
Donnelly was referring to the fact that the Army, and possibly the Marine Corps, has women assigned or attached to units that would place them in direct ground combat — but without violating the law, because the women would be withdrawn from the units before being deployed.
Donnelly said she calls this a “beam me up” strategy that hurts both men and women by placing women in peacetime jobs that they would not fill in war.
Getting more information
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the House Armed Services Committee chairman, and Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., chairman of the committee’s military personnel panel, have talked of getting more information about how the Army and Marine Corps are dealing with the combat exclusion law.
Donnelly said she hopes that involves extensive hearings because she believes the military is using double-talk to mask the fact the combat exclusion policy has been changed.
By law, women may not be assigned to combat support companies where they would be at risk of direct combat.
Donnelly said the military is skirting the policy by permanently assigning women to a higher-level unit, such as a brigade, then attaching for duties to one of the barred lower-level units.
Ellie
Women in combat debate yields a minor measure
DoD must give 30 days’ notice before changes
By Rick Maze
Times staff writer
A year of congressional debate over the role of women in combat — a debate that grew quite pointed at times — ended with lawmakers placing only a modest limitation on the Pentagon.
Under a compromise included in the 2006 defense authorization bill, lawmakers require the military to provide 30 days’ notice before making any change in ground-combat exclusion rules for female service members.
There are no indications that any policy changes are being considered, so the 30-day-notice requirement has no immediate impact other than to mark the end of a controversy that began last year over concerns that women deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom were in direct ground combat roles, a change in the combat exclusion policy set in 1994.
At issue was whether the Army, and possibly the Marine Corps, was putting women into direct combat units in Iraq.
Initially, the House Armed Services Committee voted last spring to specifically exclude women from forward combat units, but the House of Representatives, under pressure from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army officials, watered down the bill provision to only demand 60 days of advance notice before any changes were made in the combat exclusion policy.
The requirement for advance notice was further cut to 30 days in negotiations with the Senate.
The 30-day rule, recommended by the Defense Department, is not 30 calendar days, but 30 “legislative” days in which Congress is in continuous session, with no more than three days of break between meetings.
Given that the congressional calendar has frequent weeklong breaks, this may happen only four or five times a year.
‘It’s not satisfactory’
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, who blew the whistle on the fact some female soldiers were being assigned to forward combat support companies in apparent violation of the 1994 policy, said she is unhappy with the outcome.
“It is not satisfactory,” she said. “It is an unacceptable situation. It is unfair to women and unfair to men.”
Donnelly said she generally supports Rumsfeld but believes he is making a mistake in this case.
“He intervened in what should have been a congressional debate when there is obvious evidence that the combat exclusion law is not being followed,” she said.
“They are in violation of the law right now,” Donnelly said, referring to the possibility that women are being assigned or attached to company-level units that would put them in direct combat roles.
Donnelly was referring to the fact that the Army, and possibly the Marine Corps, has women assigned or attached to units that would place them in direct ground combat — but without violating the law, because the women would be withdrawn from the units before being deployed.
Donnelly said she calls this a “beam me up” strategy that hurts both men and women by placing women in peacetime jobs that they would not fill in war.
Getting more information
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the House Armed Services Committee chairman, and Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., chairman of the committee’s military personnel panel, have talked of getting more information about how the Army and Marine Corps are dealing with the combat exclusion law.
Donnelly said she hopes that involves extensive hearings because she believes the military is using double-talk to mask the fact the combat exclusion policy has been changed.
By law, women may not be assigned to combat support companies where they would be at risk of direct combat.
Donnelly said the military is skirting the policy by permanently assigning women to a higher-level unit, such as a brigade, then attaching for duties to one of the barred lower-level units.
Ellie