No Woman's Land

Why Women Should Not be in Combat

On January 24, 2013, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta reversed a long-standing policy prohibiting women from serving in combat units in the U.S. military.  Despite what is likely to be a firestorm of criticism for writing this post in opposition to that policy, including the likely wrath of most women who read this, I believe that the need for a frank discussion about the realities of women in combat is necessary to bring about a greater understanding of the subject and to hopefully avert the dire consequences of the policy's implementation.  Additionally, I must confess that the reasons for writing this are also highly personal and grounded in a desire for understanding by the society at large for the decision shows that this country does not truly understand what combat is like because if it did, it would not have made the decision to put women on the front lines.

Combat does not require exceptional physical prowess, knowledge, or creativity

Despite the endless banter of the talking heads, the reason women have no place on the battlefield is not because of physical differences, for combat is not really about having a certain kind of physique.  If that were the case, then, the military would simply go to the nearest Gold's Gym to find its Special Forces operators.  Nor is it about special intelligence, or knowledge, or technical expertise.  Commentators have given the example of the 6'4", 220 lbs. Marine who has been wounded and needs to be carried to a MEDEVAC and pointing to the fact that most women would not be able to accomplish that task.  But the truth is that neither could most infantrymen because a modern soldier in full battle-rattle can easily weigh close to 300 lbs. - far more than the average 19-year-old infantryman can carry.

Nor does combat require some exceptional ability to analyze complex problems (as is required in law, science, engineering, etc) - because most of the time very little is actually known about the enemy and his exact location, size, or capabilities. Commanders, therefore, make the best choices they can given very scarce information.  Lastly, combat is also not about being hard-working, creative, or diligent (as many jobs require) because things oftentimes happen very quickly on the modern battlefield and are over in a matter of minutes.

Combat requires single-minded, unadulterated focus on destroying the enemy - something the female psyche lacks

What effectiveness in combat truly hinges on is the degree to which an individual is able to abandon all other thoughts in favor of singular focus on killing the enemy.  The soldier must become, as Col. Kurtz describes in Apocalypse Now, "Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure."  All other thoughts dissolve - thoughts of family, of current issues in one's life, even of self-preservation - receding from the soldier's consciousness until the only thing that exists is the blind, overwhelming desire to kill another human being.

Blowing bubbles and blowing the target away

Fortunately, I believe, this is a primordial instinct that women do not have.  While it is, of course, true that women can kill, they generally do so to protect a loved one and not out of a taste for blood.  Combat requires something different than what women generally possess because the killing in combat is for the most part not undertaken to protect loved ones but rather out of a sense of enjoyment of the violence.

Apparently not too hellish (note the smile)

As a side note, the situation itself triggers primordial instincts which is why all any government needs to do is just get the soldier onto the battlefield.  At that point, politics, justifications, and missions go out the window and the desire to survive and kill takes over.  Ultimately, the soldier does what he has been sent there to do.

The point is that what effectiveness in combat requires is something completely different from what is conventionally understood.  No one could say it better than Kurtz:

"You have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling...without passions...without judgment...without judgment!"

"Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure."

Assuming that the reader has a basic understanding of the psychology of combat, I will now lay out the various reasons why women should not be involved in it.

Reasons for Not Allowing Women to be in Combat

 I.  Allowing women to serve in combat units will destroy unit cohesion

We all know that adding a female to a group of males changes the entire social dynamic.  Suddenly, what was before a group of boys playing off each other's masculinity has become a competition for the attention of the female: 

A criminal, a jock, a basket case, a princess, and a nerd

 As a result of this automatic shift, women cannot participate in the camaraderie that exists between men:

A pack of wolves

Conversely, men cannot really integrate fully into a group of women (which is why no man will ever truly understand Steel Magnolias or The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants).

 II.  Allowing women to serve in combat units will reduce operational effectiveness

American men are raised from birth to protect women.  If a unit were in contact, the men would not be able to focus on their job but rather instinctively move to protect the women in the unit.  Were that to happen at a collective level, the unit would be rendered combat ineffective.

Additionally, for the same cultural reasons, combat commanders are likely to not select certain subordinate units for assignments because of the presence of women in those units, especially if those assignments are high-risk.  It must be noted that those decisions may even happen subconsciously.

III.  The presence of women in combat is not a civil rights issue like gay rights or racial equality

Tempting as it is to make the comparison, the issue before us contains no parallels to either the civil rights movement or any other movement for equality.  At issue in those movements is the fundamental absurdity of depriving certain groups of basic rights based on factors that have no relation to anything.  In the present case, however, the distinction is based on genuine differences and not on something absurd and false such as the belief that women are intellectually inferior or that black people are less capable than whites.  In this case, the difference is based on actual differences in psychology.   

Additionally, soldiering is not a "job" in the sense that lawyering, or practicing medicine, or working on cars constitute "jobs."  Soldiering is essentially cold-blooded killing and has nothing to do with an ability to process or analyze information, comprehend difficult concepts, or manage many tasks at once.  For that reason, successful integration of women into pilot jobs and even space shuttle command positions does not translate into any indication of success in combat.

IV.  Women who participate in direct combat will not be able to lead normal lives as women afterwards

Combat changes people.  It changes the way they see themselves and it changes their understanding of human nature.  Never again can a soldier deny his own Inner Beast, nor the fact that even kind, moral people have the propensity for savage cruelty.  Women who see that first-hand in themselves and in the men around them will never be able to have a healthy relationship with a man again because they will know what most women do not want to know: that despite the nice clothes and polished exterior, their partner has a savage, primordial beast at the core.

Even men who have undergone this process have difficulty coming to terms with what they've witnessed in themselves.  T.S. Eliot's poem The Hollow Men beautifully captures the predicament of

"...

Those who have crossed,

With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom

Remember us--if at all--not as lost

Violent souls, but only

As the hollow men

The stuffed men
..."

Kurtz reads The Hollow Men by T.S. Eliot

  
V.  Men who are in combat alongside women will be less effective

Men who finds themselves in combat alongside women will not allow themselves to be entirely possessed by the Beast for fear that the women (whose approval they constantly seek) will think lesser of them should they see them devolve into savages.  This is the same reason, I believe, that most veterans do not talk about their experience in war with their families.  Their concern is not due to some fear of rousing up some traumatic, unspeakable experience but rather that they abhor the idea that their families will see them as killers and not as moral, decent people.  This is also why, I suspect, many soldiers are grateful that their families are far away "back home" because it frees them up to be fully present in the violence of the moment while telling themselves that, "What happens in the jungle, stays in the jungle."

 VI.  Conclusions drawn from the fact that women have been deployed to combat zones over the past decade are erroneous

Proponents of the idea of putting women in combat like to point to data about the presence of women in combat since 9/11.  What they fail to understand, however, is that these women were generally only peripherally involved in ground combat and, if they were, it was almost always as an augmentee to a combat unit and, therefore, only in a supporting role as public affairs officers, transportation soldiers, quartermasters, civil affairs specialists, or even as explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) technicians.

In those positions, even if the unit were to come into contact, the responsibility for defending against the attack would fall to the combat soldiers that were providing the security for the escort.  As such, accurate data about the ability of women to actually fight (and not just be there) is entirely lacking.  In fact, if the Jessica Lynch saga is any indication of what the reality would be like, it does not bode well.

Proponents will also point to the fact that women have been attack helicopter pilots in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and point to their exemplary service in that capacity.  There is no doubt that this is true.  What they fail to realize, however, is that reality of close-quarters ground combat is far different from flying above the battlefield - it is much more up-close and personal and requires a savagery and a ferocity that, if anything, is counter-productive in the air.

VII.  Ultimately, the differences between men and women are rooted in the psyche and not in culture

The differences that exist between the genders are not rooted in cultural or social conditioning.  They predate both culture and society by probably a million years.  Accordingly, the idea that with different cultural conditioning women will possess the same primordial killing instincts that men possess is mistaken.  That basic, fundamental difference -- the propensity for savage, cold-blooded killing -- is the primary reason that combat is the domain of men.

Possible Reasons for Such a Misguided Decision

I think there are essentially two reasons why this decision came about and will likely not be reversed:

I.  The proliferation of movies, video games, and news reporting about war has led people to mistakenly believe that they understand what combat is like

Footage of combat can be found everywhere these days.  Even YouTube has videos shot with helmet cams by soldiers in firefights.  And while the general public may now know what combat looks and sounds like, it still has no understanding of what it feels like and what the state of mind is like of the individuals involved in it.  This gap has created a false sense of understanding about the reality of war and led people to believe that they are fit to make drastic decisions regarding how it is executed.

Even police, federal agents, and other civil servants may not understand the psychological transformation that takes place in war because their roles are fundamentally different.  Police restore order and protect citizens.  Soldiers destroy an enemy.  The difference in psychology is great, despite the fact that at first glance they seem similar because they both involve uniforms and weapons.  Unfortunately, however, only few people understand the experience of single-minded focus on killing and destruction and describing what that experience is like is similar to trying to describe what a steak tastes like to a lifelong vegetarian.  As Kurtz says: "It is impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means."

 II.  Those who are concerned about the policy are unwilling to speak out against it

There is, I suspect, a general unwillingness on the part of many veterans to speak out against the policy for fear of seeming to be opposed to equal rights for women.  Additionally, they may be concerned about trying to engage in a discussion about it and not being able to articulate what combat is like to those who have not experienced it.  Lastly, it may be that many of them are concerned about being seen as a killer (something not admired in our society) if they speak their mind.

Conclusion

Actual implementation of this policy is likely to have immediate, visible, and disastrous consequences for the combat effectiveness of the U.S. military.  I suspect that the first co-ed unit in contact will unravel and disintegrate in the face of a determined foe.  It may sound overly simplistic, but as an old infantry officer once told me years ago: "You need to have dogs at the gates that you can unleash on your enemies when you need to."  That kind of business requires a savagery that is, for better or worse, resident in the male psyche alone.

SGT Rex awaits the green light

----------
Additional Note (added on February 3, 2013)

Astute readers have brought to my attention that in my efforts to highlight what I believe is the most critical and least discussed component of an effective combat soldier, I have, unfortunately, understated the fact that combat does truly require a certain degree of physical fitness, the ability to make good decisions under pressure, and the good ol' sixth sense.

Some of these qualities - most specifically physical fitness - can be trained, as the Army and Marines do with all their infantrymen.  Good judgment under pressure may be less train-able and a sixth sense even more so.  Nevertheless, a good infantryman must possess all of these qualities.  If he lacks the critical component of savagery, however, I suspect he will, in the end, not really be an effective soldier.