{"id":19404,"date":"2013-01-27T19:54:46","date_gmt":"2013-01-28T00:54:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=19404"},"modified":"2013-01-27T19:54:46","modified_gmt":"2013-01-28T00:54:46","slug":"ban-on-women-in-combat-lifted-is-the-military-ready","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2013\/01\/ban-on-women-in-combat-lifted-is-the-military-ready\/","title":{"rendered":"Ban on Women in Combat Lifted: Is the Military Ready?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced<\/a> that the military\u2019s ban on women in combat will be lifted.\u00a0 According to the Department of Defense, 14.6% of the nation\u2019s military<\/a> is made up of women; according to The N.Y. Times<\/a> and Huffington Post<\/a>, more than 280,000 of them were deployed during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.\u00a0 While those women were banned from combat, they often saw combat action nonetheless<\/a>, as they were attached to battalions in positions that sometimes came under fire.\u00a0 Of the more than 6,600 troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, 152 of them have been women<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

There may still be some combat positions that women will not be allowed to fill; however, the presumption seems to be that all combat positions are open to women unless a particular branch of the military requests an exception and presumably has the burden to prove why women should not be so allowed.\u00a0 Previous opposition to women in combat often revolved around concerns about women\u2019s strength and whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.\u00a0 Clearly, not all women will be physically capable of certain assignments. But then again, neither are all men.\u00a0 At least now, those women who are capable and who want to fill those assignments will have the opportunity to do so.\u00a0 The argument about unit cohesion is also one that had long been made against allowing gays\u2014and African Americans before them\u2014to serve in the military.\u00a0 That argument, too, has been debunked, and since 2012, LBGT soldiers can serve openly.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Allowing women in combat opens up hundreds of thousands of new jobs for women and allows women the opportunity to climb the ranks in the military.\u00a0 Without combat leadership experience, military advancement, regardless of the soldier\u2019s gender, is limited.\u00a0 In the past, this limitation disproportionately stifled women\u2019s military careers.\u00a0 No longer. As The New York Times reported, General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in a letter that the lifting of the ban ensures \u201cthat women as well as men \u2018are given the opportunity to succeed.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Despite the public support<\/a> for allowing women in combat, there are those who oppose the idea, with one retired army general<\/a> calling it \u201ca vast social experiment in which hundreds of thousands of men and women will be the guinea pigs.\u201d The decision, he maintains, is ideologically based and not militarily based.<\/p>\n

Such rhetoric is reminiscent of Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s in Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981)<\/a><\/i>. In that case, the Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld Congress\u2019 refusal to require women register for the draft under the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA). The Court held that Congress\u2019 gender-based discrimination of requiring males aged 18-26 but not females aged 18-26 to register for the draft did not violate the Fifth Amendment\u2019s due process clause.\u00a0 Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s logic seems to have rested primarily on two bases: first, that the Court should defer to Congress in matters regarding the military, as Congress has broad constitutional power over national defense and military affairs; and second, that the sole purpose of registration is to provide a pool of eligible bodies for combat troops. Since women at that time were banned from combat positions, there would be no point in requiring them to register.\u00a0 Chief Justice Rehnquist cited portions of Congressional testimony that stated the request to include women in the draft at that time (1981) was based out of equity rather than due to military needs, a point not completely borne out by the entire record.\u00a0 Even in 1981, women were in the service and filled many necessary non-combat roles, roles that still would need to be staffed in the event that combat troops would need to be mobilized.<\/p>\n

Justice Marshall, in dissent, began, \u201cThe Court today places its imprimatur on one of the most potent remaining public expressions of ancient canards about the proper role of women.\u201d Rostker<\/i>, 453 U.S. at 86 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (internal quotations omitted).\u00a0 Justice Marshall does not elaborate on whether women are suited for combat or whether they should be drafted at all; he recognizes the question before the Court was more narrow:\u00a0 it was solely whether the statute that required men to register<\/i> under the MSSA but excluded women from registering<\/i> violated equal protection.<\/p>\n

The decision to allow women in combat seriously undermines the rationale of Rostker<\/i> and suggests that women, too, should be required under the MSSA to register for the draft. However, that topic, and the issues it raises, is for another day.<\/p>\n

At the heart of Justice Rehnquist\u2019s and Congress\u2019 decision to exclude women from registration because they were banned from serving as combat troops was their understanding that women are not suited for combat.\u00a0 Somehow, incorporating women on the front lines messes things up for the military. Retired Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin recently said<\/a>,<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 These units can often be deployed in prolonged operations that can last for months. The physical toll is constant and wearing. During operations of this kind there is typically no access to a base of operations or facilities. Consequently, living conditions can be abysmal and base.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There is routinely no privacy or ability to maintain personal hygiene for extended periods. Soldiers and Marines have to relieve themselves within sight of others.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Apparently only men can handle a \u201cprolonged\u201d operation that is physically draining and where living conditions are \u201cabysmal and base.\u201d Boykin has apparently forgotten that most women routinely\u2014and more than once\u2014handle the physically draining prolonged operation of being pregnant and bearing children. And I suppose if living conditions are \u201cabysmal and base,\u201d that means there is no place to plug in a hair dryer or put on makeup, much less get a manicure, which is obviously what women soldiers would need while in combat. The whole privacy issue is a none-too-subtle way of indicating that women\u2019s monthly biology remains mysterious and frightening to men, for I can\u2019t imagine that any <\/i>person relishes a lack of privacy when relieving him or herself.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Frankly, not all men can handle such conditions, just as not all women can.\u00a0 But those who can, should be allowed to. It seems to me that it\u2019s quite possible for co-ed troops to co-exist and they can do so more times than not without any \u201cunderlying sexual tensions,\u201d another point that Boykin believes will undermine the effectiveness of combat troops. Suggesting that there will be \u201cunderlying sexual tensions\u201d harms both men and women for it suggests that men\u2019s ability to focus on a life-threatening situation is significantly reduced if not obliterated by the mere presence of a woman and it suggests that a woman\u2019s purpose on the front line is to seduce a man or that she, too, will be distracted from her duties because of the men. This is not to say that when men and women meet in any environment that there are never \u201cunderlying sexual tensions,\u201d for that would not be true.\u00a0 But it diminishes both sexes to suggest that those tensions, if any, affect both sexes\u2019 ability to perform professionally and properly. Surely we as humans are more than just our libidos. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The lifting of the ban places the United States with roughly a dozen other countries that allow women to serve as part of combat units<\/a>, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, and Norway.\u00a0 It\u2019s a welcome change.<\/p>\n

Special thanks to my research assistant Greg Helding (2L) for discussing this post with me while I was drafting it.<\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the military\u2019s ban on women in combat will be lifted.\u00a0 According to the Department of Defense, 14.6% of the nation\u2019s military is made up of women; according to The N.Y. Times and Huffington Post, more than 280,000 of them were deployed during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[98,125,19,86,122],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civil-rights","category-congress-congressional-power","category-federal-law-legal-system","category-feminism","category-public","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19404","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}