If you’ve tuned in to any sort of news media in the past two weeks, you’re most likely now well aware of the issue surrounding front-line women combatants in the military. Now, this came as a shock to me because I assumed that those who sign up for military service, be they men or women, were at equal risk of seeing front-line action. After seeing some interviews featuring servicewomen who’ve had tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems to me that in modern warfare, there isn’t a clear cut delineation between where the soldiers wage war on a front line and where R&R, combat-free zones begin. Both women and men are fighting, both are dying, and I doubt whether, once bullets start flying, either group is necessarily concerned about whether they’re technically viewed as front-line combatants. Still, some folks have taken issue with allowing women to have a place on the front line.
It seems like a large portion of the debate is centered on the physical capacities of women in comparison to men. Most of those opposed to the initiative for frontline women combatants will state that on average, a woman’s physical strength will not match a man’s, or that a woman’s lung capacity is not sufficient enough for the rigors of combat. Despite finding myself on the pro-women combatant side of the debate, I can see how this is a legitimate concern for the detractors, but also more importantly, how it’s a reasonable point of debate; this is refreshing, as being reasonable toward one another seems to be something our political parties have left by the wayside over the past, say, hundred years — give or take a few decades, if need be.
To flesh the argument out a bit, I’ll make it relevant to me. I’m not a big guy. I’d even venture to say I’m average size, which makes me a prime representative for the argument’s sake. To support it, I’d say I feel confident I could go into the weight room on campus and lift more weight than most of the women in there. At the same time, some, if not most, of those same women could probably outrun me by a couple of miles. So, in that regard, who’s more physically fit? Furthermore, there are probably some females on this campus, and there are definitely women across this country, who could put me to shame in any form of physical activity or competition. Maybe that makes them more than average, or me less than average.
The military has its system of accepting and declining those signing up for service; it can assess their physical competency. If our military is something our nation values, which, based off of its budget it does, then average in any capacity is not something that will be deemed acceptable: the men and women serving in our military are above average at the very least. The argument can continue to be made that an above average male is stronger than an above average female. If we need our soldiers to out-bench press opposing forces, then give me our biggest, baddest male soldiers, and let’s win ourselves a war. But if you want to have an elite fighting force comprised of the best soldiers, than overall brute strength isn’t the only determining factor when it comes to assessing our soldiers.
Another heavy factor surrounding the issue is the effect women will have on cohesiveness and camaraderie within a unit, presumably because of cooties. Earl Tilford of the Washington Times writes, “In combat, soldiers must watch out for each other based on a sense of comradeship akin to brotherly love. This cannot be sexually driven, since the overwhelming power of such attraction can divide rather than unite those facing mortal danger.” Basically, male combatants won’t be able to perform their duties to the highest degree because they’re going to be distracted by the presence of women. Now, I can’t speak from experience because I’ve never been in a war zone, but I feel fairly confident that if bullets where flying around my head in Afghanistan, my first thought would not be, “Wow, Sergeant Kim is hot.”
A lot of this comes back to having the best soldiers; not the strongest, not the tallest or toughest, but the best — a combination of physicality, discipline, technique and skill. So again, if we have male soldiers, who despite superior strength, grit and lung capacity, are going to be affected by the presence of a woman to the point of the jeopardization of fellow soldiers, then Tilford’s comment, “The process of natural selection will prove determinant” is true, though not resulting in the death of weak female soldiers, as he may have been arguing.