General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWomen in Combat? Let’s Reframe the Debate
Women in Combat? Lets Reframe the Debate
Defense Secretary Ash Carter is due to receive from his military leaders their recommendations on ending policies that exclude women from combat. His decision on the matter is expected by the end of the year.
Public opinion of the policy has changed in recent years in response to womens rights advocates contending that exclusion is a form of sex discrimination. Additionally, military readiness of late has been diminished by falling recruitment and retention rates, a problem that women in the ranks helps solve. Available data, moreover, says women can meet the standards for combat preparedness. Both positions are supported by academic studies, such as Megan MacKenzies Beyond the Band of Brothers: The U.S. Military and the Myth that Women Cant Fight. A February 7, 2013 Quinnipiac Poll found up to 76 percent of Americans favoring the integration of women into combat roles.
. . . . . .
Mindful of that history, the debate over allowing women in combat has me wondering: Are the should/shouldnt and can/cant questions the only way to frame the debate? Is there an antiwar voice comparable to that of labor 30 years ago on the issue of workplace standards? A no-combat position would be politically impractical, of course, unwise, even, in the current geopolitical environment. But a strategical use of the issue, just as some union members used concerns about weight limits in the 1980s, could leverage more serious thinking about the militarization of our culture and economy. With a few months to go before Secretary Carter rules on the issues, the non-combat status of women can still be used to renew a national conversation about the costs of U.S. warshuman and otherwisein the 21st century.
It would be easy enough, for example, to argue that all soldiers under the age of 21 should, like women, be exempt from combat. Whereas the combat exception for women is based on physical qualifications, evidence that the still-developing minds and emotions of young adultsboth men and womenmake them especially vulnerable to the stresses and traumas of war provides a basis upon which to keep them away from combat. Such a policy would not only not deprive young recruits of the income, job-training opportunities and post-service benefits like educationthat, for some advocates, justify military serviceit would likely channel them into military occupational specialties that transfer more readily to future civilian employment.
The age limitations on combat experience would protect teenagers from military recruiters who prey particularly on young mens machismo and fantasies of war-front valor. Those youthful expectations of prideful martial accomplishment are fed by film and veteran folklore, but they are seldom met with satisfaction by real-world military experiencea fact that is a likely contributor to the despondency of returnees from the new wars that is sometimes lumped in with other ailments for PTSD diagnoses. It is sickening that anyone under the legal age for drinking in most states is lost in battle, making the demand for a wider combat-exemption policy, leveraged by the non-combat standing of women, a priority for reform movements.
. . . .
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2015/11/09/women-in-combat-lets-reframe-the-debate/
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)The issue is how easily the sheep can be led to the slaughter. War should cast in stark highlights the difference between the fat cats who create it and the poor suckers who fight it. It should be obvious that the former care not one whit about the welfare of the latter, or they wouldn't be putting them into harm's way to begin with.
-- Mal
niyad
(113,344 posts)malthaussen
(17,204 posts)The military are trying very hard to take the humans out of wars -- except, of course, the enemies blown to smithereens. I'm reminded a bit of Harry Harrison's "War With the Robots," a heckuva story published 'way back in '62. Ironically, those who push for fully-mechanized war can argue that their motivations are "humanitarian," in that they are trying to save "our" people from being damaged or killed. The bad guys, of course, don't count. I find the hypocrisy gag-worthy, at times, especially when cooed over by people of otherwise more-or-less good will. The honesty of the old bishop who said "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out" is actually refreshing in this context. Having been indoctrinated since youth that it is perfectly all right to kill other people who don't agree with you (so long as it is done wholesale, and not retail), I have kind of equivocal feelings: the slaughter may be "justifiable" for some value of "justice," but the lying about it sticks in my craw.
-- Mal