Dakota Beacon

I never thought I would see the day when women would be integrated into US Army infantry and armor units, the ground-gaining arms. This may satisfy feminist ideologues and utopian visionaries among us, but militarily this is not a good idea.

Let’s be clear. Every person in uniform is not tasked with the rigors, stress and physical demands of combat as a routine. This only happens in Hollywood and on TV. The large majority of those in the US Army do not see combat. That doesn’t mean they don’t get fired upon or caught in an ambush. Every soldier in the Army is trained to fight as infantry but the large majority are never called upon to do so. They never fire a shot in anger. The same is true of Marines. Other services experience even less opportunity for combat. Women do have a role to play in the military and have done so with distinction for years, but not in the infantry or armor.

Virtually no serious armed force of consequence in the world today integrates women into infantry and armor units. This includes Israel, Russia, China and North Korea. They have done so for short periods in the past to compensate for a shortage of men. This was the exception, not the rule.

Integrating women into infantry and armor units is not equivalent to integrating women into the civilian work force. Feminist ideologues, however, favor placing women in combat units. They would argue one’s gender is arbitrary as long as one is qualified for a position. On the high tech battlefield, technical expertise is increasingly more important than brute strength. This ignores the fact that the brute strength of the ground-gaining arms make the final determination of victory.

Utopians argue that a mixed-gender force keeps the military strong. Opening the applicant pool for all jobs guarantees more recruits. Despite the increased applicant pool, personnel readiness is degraded as a result of absence due to pregnancy.

In modern combat, women serving in the military are exposed to front-line risks. True. But they are not required to engage in infantry tactical missions month after month.

Allowing women to serve in infantry and armor units increases the talent pool for delicate and sensitive jobs requiring interpersonal skills that men lack. This argument is oxymoronic and does not warrant a response.

Combat duty is typically required for promotion to senior officer positions. Denying females combat experience ensures they will never reach the highest positions thereby entrenching sexism. This is partially true. Most male Army officers in other-than-combat arms career fields (majority of male officers) most often do not advance to the highest positions, either.

The arguments opposing women in infantry and armor units are altogether rational and reasonable and are not ideologically (sexist) driven.

Of critical importance to success on the battlefield is unit cohesion. Mackubin Owens in a recent piece in the “Weekly Standard” explains. Cohesiveness is based on love that the Greeks called “philia” -- comradeship, friendship, brotherly love, loyalty without need for reasons.

Another form of love, one that is destructive to unit cohesion, the Greeks called “eros” -- a form of love that is individual and exclusive. It exhibits sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism. All the training and social engineering in the world will not resolve the issue of eros.

Morale and cohesion are seriously degraded by co-ed combat arms units. Men treat women differently and visa versa. Women in close confines of combat units release the eros at the expense of philia. Men are disposed to protect women. This distracts from the focus on combat mission accomplishment. Allowing women to serve in infantry and armor units harm mission effectiveness by hurting morale and cohesion. This was the Israeli experience.

Unequal physical differences and the ways men relate to women establishes a double standard which, in turn, reflect a deterioration in individual morale and unit performance as a whole. Most Army jobs are open to women. But there are a few jobs for which women are not suited. Owens goes on to point out that significant physical capabilities are undeniable and have caused the military to discard the essence of philia -- fairness and the absence of favoritism. As former Secretary of the Navy James Webb points out, “In the military environment, fairness is not only crucial, it is the coin of the realm.” A double standard favoring women over men in physical fitness standards, privacy, time off for pregnancy to name a few is deadly to unit cohesion.

It is a false premise to assert that denying women entry into the combat arms reduces their effective contribution to the defense of the nation. Women have served bravely and honorably over the decades and may continue to do so in their current capacity. However, integrating women into combat units will not strengthen the military’s combat effectiveness but can certainly degrade it for the reasons asserted above.

It is the reasoned, non-ideological argument that will save lives, win battles and accomplish the infantry and armor combat mission.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).