The military and its use in defending the country are one of the powers expressly enumerated in our Constitution. Unlike other responsibilities that some would like to give to it (e.g. health care, as I’ve discussed here before), this particular duty is spelled out quite clearly. Our founding fathers, in attempting to limit the federal government’s powers while leaving the rest to the states or the people, made sure that this power was indeed a federal issue. Defense of its citizens and interests is a proper role of government.
Over time, aspects of the military have changed, but none more controversial than its makeup. When a racially-integrated military was suggested, initial reactions against it were mostly due to racial prejudice than anything else, either on the part of the person reacting or on the assumption that such prejudice existed in the ranks. As racial views changed, that integration became far easier.
Over time, another type of integration took place; that of including women in combat. The concept was not entirely new (it goes back to ancient times), but in the US, while the controversy was heated in earlier decades, as women were included more and more the issue isn’t considered that big a deal anymore, on par with racial integration. However, I think that recent events should give us pause to consider the question again.
There have always been the straw arguments that proponents of women in combat have attributed to the other side that either were never actually presented or were extreme minority opinions. One of those was that women weren’t as patriotic as men or willing to die for freedom. This was typically presented as the claim that women were just as patriotic, with the implication that the other side didn’t think so.
However, there are a number of arguments against women in combat that represent real physical and psychological concerns, and not always on the part of the women themselves. Wikipedia presents some of these arguments, including physical differences and the reaction of men to wounded women. The tradition and seeming instinct of protecting women plays into this. The cry, "Women and children first", was never taken to be a call to arms. The Wikipedia article notes, regarding experiments with women in integrated units in the Israeli Defense Force:
The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.
Say what you will about the male and the protection instinct, it’s real and it’s there (and it’s not a bad thing).
Another issue has been that of romantic relationship within the unit, causing a couple to perhaps become more concerned about each other than the remainder of the unit, or a love triangle which would create less concern between some. Unit cohesion is paramount in combat, and adding this dimension can easily cancel out any other gains. (Incidentally, this is, at least to me, the main reason to be against gays in the military.)
It’s this sexual angle to the inclusion of women that can be the most destructive. And to some, it can be far worse than an issue with a jilted lover.
Read the rest of this entry