thedrifter
03-21-08, 11:31 AM
On 5th Anniversary: Disrespect for Army Women and Men [Elaine Donnelly]
Five years ago this week, infantry, armor, artillery, Special Operations Forces and Marines led the fast-moving ground assault to liberate Baghdad. In November 2004 the same troops, fighting door-to-door and street-to-street, cleaned out Fallujah, an enemy stronghold. Those fierce battles, and many more throughout Afghanistan and the entire region, define “direct ground combat,” which involves more than the experience of being “in harm’s way.”
Infantry and similar direct ground combat units are trained to attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action under fire. At the smaller, “tip of the spear” level, they are required by Defense Department regulations to be all-male. Our female soldiers and Marines have served bravely in support units, but there are many good reasons why direct ground combat battalions should remain all-male.
Nevertheless, the Army is using a new bureaucratic ploy to circumvent and violate regulations that exempt female soldiers from assignment to infantry battalions. In a CMR Policy Analysis released on March 19, the Center for Military Readiness has questioned the judgment of Pentagon officials who ordered the Indiana National Guard to deploy March 1 with 39 female soldiers in the 1st Battalion, 293rd Infantry. A “Deployment Manning Document” (DMD) was used to temporarily redefine the mission of the Indiana Guard infantry battalion without changing its organizational structure.
The DMD provides thin bureaucratic cover for orders that ignore Defense Department regulations, without the legally required notice to Congress well in advance. The Fort Wayne, Indiana, Journal Gazette reported on February 25 that the direct ground combat unit was all-male during its last deployment to that country.
Since Army officials cannot guarantee that we will never again see deliberate offensive action against the enemy, the Pentagon is creating a bureaucratic mess-in-the-making, which could hamper future efforts to fight our nation’s wars.
What happens when the same infantry battalion is needed to perform its primary mission, attacking the enemy, in future land combat operations? Should the female soldiers be yanked out at that point, leaving the infantry unit short-handed? Operational nightmares could worsen even before a crisis, since standards to accommodate female soldiers in the infantry will have to be gender-normed and modified to accommodate physical differences and higher injury rates.
These issues and many more don’t seem to bother Army officials in the Pentagon. There is no evidence that they have obtained Defense Department authorization for the many illicit assignments described in the CMR Policy Analysis. Nor have they complied with laws requiring congressional oversight.
If the new arrangements are justified, and the Army wants to change regulations affecting women, why are they refusing to do so openly, in compliance with policy and law? This dereliction of duty disrespects Congress and our women in uniform. It also makes the men’s job more difficult and more dangerous when their lives are on the line.
The same CMR Policy Analysis lists several examples of improper assignments of women in or near units required to be all-male, including infantry, armor, artillery, and military transition teams (MTTs), which are small 9- to 11-man units that train Iraqi men in land combat skills. It includes reports of problems that inevitably result, including sexual misconduct and pregnancies, harassment of women who have been wrongly blamed for illicit assignments, and a growing awareness that policies affecting women are being widely ignored. Ultimately, all direct ground units, including Marine infantry and Special Operations Forces, will be affected, with standards gender-normed to accommodate female troops. At that point, litigation to impose Selective Service obligations on young women would likely succeed. Congressional leaders must provide responsible, long-delayed oversight of this chaotic situation.
In the meantime, the Center for Military Readiness would like to hear from men and women in the field, using the new “Confidential Contact” communication device that is now posted on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org.
To date 93 military women have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait since September 11, 2001. Our women in uniform are doing everything asked of them, but the Army is asking too much. For their sake as well as that of our men in the combat arms, compliance with policy and law must be restored.
Ellie
Five years ago this week, infantry, armor, artillery, Special Operations Forces and Marines led the fast-moving ground assault to liberate Baghdad. In November 2004 the same troops, fighting door-to-door and street-to-street, cleaned out Fallujah, an enemy stronghold. Those fierce battles, and many more throughout Afghanistan and the entire region, define “direct ground combat,” which involves more than the experience of being “in harm’s way.”
Infantry and similar direct ground combat units are trained to attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action under fire. At the smaller, “tip of the spear” level, they are required by Defense Department regulations to be all-male. Our female soldiers and Marines have served bravely in support units, but there are many good reasons why direct ground combat battalions should remain all-male.
Nevertheless, the Army is using a new bureaucratic ploy to circumvent and violate regulations that exempt female soldiers from assignment to infantry battalions. In a CMR Policy Analysis released on March 19, the Center for Military Readiness has questioned the judgment of Pentagon officials who ordered the Indiana National Guard to deploy March 1 with 39 female soldiers in the 1st Battalion, 293rd Infantry. A “Deployment Manning Document” (DMD) was used to temporarily redefine the mission of the Indiana Guard infantry battalion without changing its organizational structure.
The DMD provides thin bureaucratic cover for orders that ignore Defense Department regulations, without the legally required notice to Congress well in advance. The Fort Wayne, Indiana, Journal Gazette reported on February 25 that the direct ground combat unit was all-male during its last deployment to that country.
Since Army officials cannot guarantee that we will never again see deliberate offensive action against the enemy, the Pentagon is creating a bureaucratic mess-in-the-making, which could hamper future efforts to fight our nation’s wars.
What happens when the same infantry battalion is needed to perform its primary mission, attacking the enemy, in future land combat operations? Should the female soldiers be yanked out at that point, leaving the infantry unit short-handed? Operational nightmares could worsen even before a crisis, since standards to accommodate female soldiers in the infantry will have to be gender-normed and modified to accommodate physical differences and higher injury rates.
These issues and many more don’t seem to bother Army officials in the Pentagon. There is no evidence that they have obtained Defense Department authorization for the many illicit assignments described in the CMR Policy Analysis. Nor have they complied with laws requiring congressional oversight.
If the new arrangements are justified, and the Army wants to change regulations affecting women, why are they refusing to do so openly, in compliance with policy and law? This dereliction of duty disrespects Congress and our women in uniform. It also makes the men’s job more difficult and more dangerous when their lives are on the line.
The same CMR Policy Analysis lists several examples of improper assignments of women in or near units required to be all-male, including infantry, armor, artillery, and military transition teams (MTTs), which are small 9- to 11-man units that train Iraqi men in land combat skills. It includes reports of problems that inevitably result, including sexual misconduct and pregnancies, harassment of women who have been wrongly blamed for illicit assignments, and a growing awareness that policies affecting women are being widely ignored. Ultimately, all direct ground units, including Marine infantry and Special Operations Forces, will be affected, with standards gender-normed to accommodate female troops. At that point, litigation to impose Selective Service obligations on young women would likely succeed. Congressional leaders must provide responsible, long-delayed oversight of this chaotic situation.
In the meantime, the Center for Military Readiness would like to hear from men and women in the field, using the new “Confidential Contact” communication device that is now posted on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org.
To date 93 military women have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait since September 11, 2001. Our women in uniform are doing everything asked of them, but the Army is asking too much. For their sake as well as that of our men in the combat arms, compliance with policy and law must be restored.
Ellie