Air University Review, November-December 1978

Women in Combat

a demurrer

IF WE assume that arguments against permitting women in combat were not exhausted in companion pieces appearing in the Review (July-August 1977), then what more can or should be said about the subject?

First, a scan of the terms might be in order. Should women be permitted in combat? The operative words are "permitted" and "combat." At present women in the Air Force and Navy are exempted from combat service by law, Army women by policy. Ratification of the congressionally approved Equal Rights Amendment would change this and permit women to be eligible for combat duty. A ratified amendment would not translate into the trooping of America's daughters to the trenches. It simply would mean that women might lose their automatic exemption from combat, that they conceivably could serve, if they are qualified and if such service is determined to be in the best interests of the nation.

It is difficult to overemphasize the highly conditional nature of the entire picture. The Equal Rights Amendment first has to be ratified, a prospect by no means assured. Women then must be found fully qualified for combat, which many see as the crux of the problem. There is considerable controversy. More will be said on it below. Finally, the interests of the nation, and presumably those of the military, would be taken into account before coming to any conclusive determination concerning women in combat roles. The final decision will be as much a function of cultural and psychosocial values as of management and physiological considerations. One of the few statements that can be made outright on the proposal to permit women as warriors is that it is as yet illusory.

Permission for women to serve in combat categories, if and when it comes, is not so likely to affect women collectively as individually. Given the American emphasis on egalitarianism and individual freedoms, it is difficult to visualize a qualified person determined to pursue an activity not expressly prohibited by law being denied permission to pursue that activity. It is entirely conceivable, therefore, that the future will be permissive of what Margaret Mead calls" ... the deviant individual. . .The violent woman in a society that permits violence to men only...."¹ But individualized behavior does not equate to collective behavior. In any case, permission for individual women in combat would not be the same as license for battalions of Amazons. Or would it?

What also of the term "combat"? It is a word with varying shades of meaning. We are told that piloting fighter aircraft is a combat category but that piloting cargo aircraft is not. The logic of this classification might be questioned, however, particularly by pilots who flew tactical cargo missions into such contested locations as Khe Sanh during the last decade. The Air Force has taken care that, in accordance with law, its first women pilots are to be assigned noncombat jobs. Instead, they are to fly cargo transport, tanker, trainer, weather reconnaissance, and medical evacuation aircraft.² But the assignment of females to pilot vehicles which carry no combat ordnance does not mean that those women will not see combat. The nature of a military organization often makes it difficult to discern what is noncombat service.

The missile crew specialty also poses interesting questions. In practice one might see this as a noncombat assignment. Yet these personnel are members of what we explicitly term "missile combat crews." They receive specific recognition for "combat readiness," and certainly they have at their fingertips the wherewithal for waging ultimate combat.

The physical demands of missile crew duty are not great. They could certainly be performed by most women. Many observers hold that women are better suited than men for tasks requiring patience, adaptability, and attention to detail. They might view women as ideal candidates for the peculiar rigors of missile crew duty.

The Air Force has announced plans to begin training women this year to fill officer and enlisted positions on Titan II missile crews. While this initiative is a new precedent, there are a few bothersome questions for those who might otherwise herald it as a breakthrough. For instance, there is always the possibility in a litigious society of a challenge in the courts by those maintaining that to place women on missile combat crews breaks existing laws. More material for our purposes, though, are other questions.

It is interesting to note that the Titan II system was selected for the new program. By assigning women to missile crews consisting of four persons, the Air Force, temporarily at least, has exhibited sensitivity to those persons or groups who might find this policy unpalatable if it applied to the more numerous two-person Minuteman crews.* One individual's perception of Victorian sentiment is another's idea of an awkward situation. What to some is concern with sexist preoccupations is to others concern for practical logistics. A dilemma of our time is how to pacify a t one stroke the ideologist and the plumber. At any rate, it will be interesting to follow what lessons, if any, the experiment in underground missile capsules has for less technological concerns in the field.

*One might suggest that we prepare ourselves for Minuteperson crews. But the joker must be careful today, lest his attempt at brittle humor be judged brittle indeed by persons whose singular dedication to cause permits too often only an iron-tongued and humorless approach to what are admittedly our problems.

THE subject of women in the military is laden with uncomfortable questions and issues. For example, it is possible to view the problem as an economic or social construct, a biological or psychological one, or as a crisis in culture. Fortunately, these constructs are beyond the intent, scope, and competence of this article. It would not be useful here to engage in a search for reactions to status deprivation or excessive adrenal secretion, though these factors are perhaps very significant.

Nevertheless, there is a larger canvas of which my subject is a part, and it is important to identify a few of these features before proceeding. Do women desire and deserve equal pay for equal work? We can nod our answer in benign and enlightened agreement, but for some there may be a gnawing concern over the word "equal." That is, are we talking about equal performance in every respect? And what price equality? Could it be that there are certain categories of work, even in this century of the machine and heightened social awareness, which rightly defy the impulse toward complete occupational equality? An affirmative answer to this last question could invite censure, but a negative one might be equally troublesome, for there is at least the possibility that it invites delusion.

To proceed without disclaimers would invite both censure and delusion. Hence, let me say that I challenge neither the role nor the record of women in the military. I do challenge any argument which suggests that their role, particularly with regard to combat, is unaccompanied by major problems.

Part of the problem is in ourselves. We are captivated by the stereotypes that we have helped to create. Among those captivated are persons professing knowledge. One author, after recounting the supposed feats of martial women for eighteen chapters in his book, Women in Battle, gives expression to his own feelings on the subject in the epilogue:

But I deplore all the variety of circumstances which take women into war. A woman's place should be in the bed and not the battlefield, in crinoline or terylene rather than in battledress, wheeling a pram rather than driving a tank. Further, it should be the natural function of women to stop men from fighting rather than aiding and abetting them in pursuing it. One of the great inducements to the end of a war is the intense desire of men to return home to woman and bed. If a man is to have women at war with him, if he is to think of women as comrades-in-arms rather than mistresses-on-mattress the inducement disappears.³

Now, this may be partially tongue-in-cheek, but it is also quite enough to fog up the glasses of the Gloria Steinems of the world. It is a stereotype, but stereotypes, containing whatever fragments of false-hood and truth, must be contended with. They are not likely to be legislated out of existence.

The simple truth is that the female does not appear to be the best of combatants. This fact has been recognized by one of the most influential and articulate of the feminists, Simone de Beauvoir, who writes:

Aggressiveness is one of the traits of the... male; and it is not explained by competition for mates, since the number of females is about equal to the number of males; it is rather the competition that is explained by this will to combat. . . . He is in general larger than the female, stronger, swifter, more adventurous; . . . he is more masterful, more imperious. In mammalian societies it is always he who commands.⁴

One might argue that the above observation is intended to apply as biological data to mammals at large rather than to humans per se, and further that, with the replacement of the club by gunpowder, it loses its validity even to humans. But I find such argumentation deficient. The human female is no doubt more akin in size and strength to her male counterpart than is the female gorilla to hers, but she remains a mammal, enjoying the capabilities and subject to the limitations of others of her gender in that class. The laws of biology do not cease suddenly at the human border. The point should neither be labored nor stretched to concession: men possess a decided superiority in their potential for effective performance in combat.

So what? To a disbeliever who asks that question in complete seriousness perhaps no satisfactory response is possible or necessary. Although one might venture to add that even an automated battlefield is still a field on which battle is done, sometimes, if not often, in a manner that is simple, direct, and, above all, physical. We have been reminded by an advocate of women for combat, that "warfare has moved away from an emphasis on physical prowess."⁵ So far, so good, but the observer includes other statements not so readily acceptable. It may be true that certain "experiences indicate that the sight of women under fire has a bracing effect on male soldiers," but the same might be said of the introduction of children into the lines. At any rate, one has to strain in order to accept the assertion that "no group banned from combat training and combat service can hope to achieve equality." Surely it cannot be said that persons found medically or physically unqualified for combat--and here we actually mean that they are not as qualified as others available for service--have, as a group, been denied equality. The military cannot be expected to become apologist for heart murmur or flatfeet-or for lack of torso strength in women. To take note of such physical features seems far removed from violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

I would argue, without being insensitive to other well-reasoned points made by this observer, that his emphasis on the battlefield as a melting pot for the sexes is perhaps misplaced. Combat can generate quite enough heat on its own accord. When that occurs, the general objective is to control the fire, or at least keep from getting burned, rather than demonstrate anew the robustness of the American system of social justice. One way of protecting that system, as the writer himself correctly stresses, is through "increased military efficiency." I would add only two words to this phrase-- "in combat." He fails to convince me that he perceives efficiency and efficiency in combat as separate entities, requiring possibly very different approaches and ingredients.

Four woman-squadrons, armed from top to toe
Aristophanes, Lysistrata, line 454

In a sense, the question of women in combat is absurd and mooted. The fact is that the involvement of women in war has been a rather common occurrence throughout history. They have provided support from the sidelines; they have suffered their share of casualties. But for the most part women have been caught up in combat as victims rather than as participants. Their loss of innocence has been largely an involuntary one.

Admittedly, the occasional Joan of Arc, the Molly Pitcher, has appeared on the scene of battle. The list of names is unsurprisingly short. We can remember it because it is brief, novel, anomalous. Participation by women in combat has been more at the symbolic level than the real. Frequently, the symbols are not decided on until later. The Maid of Orleans carried a religious banner, not a sword, as her weapon. And her canonization did not occur until the twentieth century, in the flush of French victory after World War I. Even the example of Russian women in World War II should not be overstated. Soviet women were expected to people the production lines rather than the battle lines. "In 1945," emphasizes Alexander Werth, "fifty-one percent of all industrial workers in the Soviet Union were women."⁶ Women were also looked to for the urgent business of replacing the nation's 20 million lives lost in the war. The Order of Mother-Heroine was established in 1944 in recognition of women bearing ten or more live children as opposed to women bearing arms. Soviet women at war were expected to produce armaments and children. To the extent that they were used at all in actual combat has been described by one thoughtful commentator as "an exercise in public relations, designed to impress the outside world with the underdog position of [Russia]."⁷

There can be no doubt that the contemporary scene, one of comparative peace and not of war, represents the highwater mark to date of women's participation in the military. Some might suggest that it is only because we presently enjoy peaceful times that increasing participation is possible. Others might go even further and suggest that only during periods of intellectual thermidor, when events either sweep less urgently or are perceived to do so, could the issue of women in combat receive serious attention.

Speculation aside, there are at least two interesting features concerning the degree of female participation in present military systems. First, more women serve under American colors than in all other countries combined where data on women are available. There were more than 108,000 American women in uniform in 1976. Today there are more than 120,000. The total number of women statistically known to serve in foreign countries in 1976 was less than 70 percent of the American figure.⁸ Second, it is not the small nation in arms and "under siege" that reflects the greatest utilization of women. For example, the participation rate for women in Taiwan is less than three percent.⁹ Although the rate is five percent for Israel, that is still less than for the United States and New Zealand. The degree of service participation by women in the Soviet Union is less than one-quarter of one percent.

I would chance a conclusion of sorts concerning these statistics. On the basis of admittedly limited data, it appears that women are most likely to serve in contemporary societies either where manpower is not readily sufficient to cope with potential military exigencies (e.g., Israel) or where Western, and especially Anglo-American, social conscience is pervasive. The latter case is by far the more common one. The evolvement to date seems clearly one of social experimentation rather than of necessity. The experiment may-all trust shall-prove eminently successful in the West. It may even spread eastward. But whatever its future development or pace, the impetus behind incorporation of military womanpower has been essentially political.

How far should this experiment be taken? Perhaps one possible answer is, wherever it leads. That response doubtless contains elements of both adventurousness and wisdom. But who is supposed to be shepherding whom? The experimenter should maintain at least outward control over the experiment. The thing which I find most troublesome about the experiment is that it may be driven by data which are externally imposed rather than by those that are internally derived. Does the experiment lead to women in combat? As with most questions worth answering, some say yes, some no. The important consideration, however, is why one responds as he or she does. Is it from informed belief, sheer emotionalism, political expediency?

In 1972 Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird stated: "I don't see why there shouldn't be a woman fighter pilot... ."¹⁰ About a year later, the Commander of Strategic Air Command, General John C. Meyer, himself an ex-fighter pilot, was quoted as saying, "Physically, intellectually or emotionally, I cannot see any reason why some women can't be first-rate fighter pilots."¹¹ We have here either parallelism of opinion or mere adherence to policy. Surely the burden of proof must be on those who would claim that it is the latter. Such proof is of course very difficult. In this case, it is impossible: one individual is no longer in government; the other is deceased.

However, it is not impossible to see that there exists no unanimity on this subject among senior military men. Retired General William Westmoreland expressed himself in an interview as being unreceptive to the idea of women warriors:

Q: Do you think that women will ever be placed on the field of battle?

A: I hope not…. I'm for women in the military services. They can do most jobs as well as, some of them better, than men and they're doing it right now. But I don't believe that we have such a shortage of quality among our men that we have to force women to do the jobs that men have traditionally done throughout history.¹²

This represents the view of one whose knowledge of troops in combat is not theoretical. Of the many officers and officials who have expressed themselves explicitly on the subject, General Westmoreland is the only one who has recent combat command experience at the theater level. This fact and his present apolitical status do not make his views sacrosanct, but they do lend credence to his position.

This divergence of opinion may be the difference between one general's frame of reference and that of another. It may also represent a difference between the combat service requirements of the Air Force and the Army. Long-term tests are now being conducted by the services to determine requirements insofar as they pertain to the use of women in combat. It would seem that physical and intellectual factors might be sorted out most readily. The emotional dimension may prove more resistant to analysis.

How does one determine battle stress without battle? For sure there are methods for intelligent approach to this question, but they should be pursued very carefully. It may be that certain women are found equal or superior to the average male with regard to emotional stability in the face of violence. However, that proposition has yet to be demonstrated on anything approaching a general scale. I emphatically am not saying that women are uniformly giddy or unstable under duress. I am saying that there is evidence to suggest that the emotional constitution of women is basically different from that of men. Again, the research of Mlle. de Beauvoir appears illuminating:

Instability is strikingly characteristic of woman's organization in general... Irregularities in the endocrine secretions react on the sympathetic nervous system, and nervous and muscular control is uncertain. This lack in stability and control underlies woman's emotionalism, which is bound up with circulatory fluctuations-palpitation of the heart, blushing, and so forth-and on this account women are subject to such displays of agitation as tears, hysterical laughter, and nervous crises.¹³

Before women are "armed from top to toe" and readied for combat, there is a wide range of questions that must be explored. Some of these questions we doubtless as yet do not even know how to ask. It can only be hoped, for the sake of all interested parties, that we do not light upon the answer before the question.

I AM NOT certain, but I do not believe that men are jealously protective of their role as combatants. Combat is not something to be coveted. Certainly, the military owes every judicious consideration to those women who, for whatever reason, seek to become combat participants. Perhaps it would not be chauvinistic to say that we owe to them almost as much consideration as we do collectively to those who would be assigned to fight at their left and right, almost as much consideration as must be given to the legions of nonparticipants who stand to the rear and whose lives may be affected irrevocably by the outcome.

1. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (New York: William Morrow & Company, 1935, excerpted in Alice S. Rossi, editor, The Feminist Papers (New York: Bantam Books, 1974), p. 667.

2. "Women Receive Air Force Okay to Become Pilots for First Time," Washington Star, August 9, 1977, p. 5. Of the 20 females carefully selected for pilot training, ten are to graduate from the program. This performance is described as "comparable to that of successful male students."

3. John Laffin, Women in Battle (New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1968), p. 185.

4. The Second Sex, translated by H. M. Parshley (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1972), p. 56. (Emphasis added.) Lest I misrepresent Mlle. de Beauvoir's essential message, I should also quote her fine closing passage of the book: "It is for man to establish the reign of liberty in the midst of the world of the given. To gain the supreme victory, it is necessary, for one thing, that by and through their natural differentiation men and women unequivocally affirm their brotherhood." (p. 741)

5. See Kenneth P. Werrell, "Should Women Be Permitted in Combat? Yes," Air University Review, July-August 1977, pp. 64-68.

6. Russia at War: 1941-1945 (New York: Avon Books, 1965), p. 905. Werth’s Italics.

7. George M. Quester, "Women in Combat," International Security, Spring 1977, p. 81.

8. See Martin Binkin and Shirley J. Bach, Women and the Military (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1977), p. 114. The table of 21 "selected countries," for which information was available, did not include either the People’s Republic of China or Cuba, countries where one would expect the rate of female participation in the military to be relatively high.

9. Ibid.

10. Quoted in Werrell, p. 68.

11. Ibid.

12. T. L. Wells, "William Westmoreland," Atlanta Constitution, August 1, 1977, p. 10.

13. The Second Sex, p. 64.

Contributor

Lieutenant Colonel Edd D. Wheeler (Ph.D., Emory University) is a plans and programs officer on the Air Staff.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor