It’s not a question of whether or not women belong in the military. Women serve, and serve proudly and bravely today, and frankly the Armed Forces are lucky to have them. They’re pilots, logisticians, FET’s, Intel chiefs, PAO’s, and in these and other MOS’s, the enlisted, senior enlisted, and officer ranks are improved by their presence.

And in Iraq and Afghanistan they’ve served in combat; fighting as up-gunners on convoys, helo pilots - and they’ve done very well.

But in the Pentagon’s frantic search for diversity and inclusiveness (which means they have a bigger pool from which to draw recruits), this past January, the Pentagon’s Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended that women be allowed to enter combat arms MOS’s.

The issue made the news briefly, but was quickly overshadowed by the NFL playoffs, as well as DADT, Repub vs. Dem politics, and the economy. But while the issue might not be considered newsworthy to the American public, it is very newsworthy to those who do the fighting, so therefore worth discussing here.

The Military Diversity Commission’s Issue Paper # 56 (Nov 2010) “Women in Combat” addressed potential combat role of women in the Army, while stating it specifically excluded the Marine Corp due to the small number of Women Marines. To summarize, the paper said “…there is no evidence women lack the physical ability to perform in combat roles…no evidence that gender integration has a negative effect on unit integration or other readiness factors…but that assignment policies contribute to women’s reduced career opportunities, particularly in the officer corps and more so in the Army and Marine Corps.”

Yet since there are no women in combat-arms, one must question the validity of the report’s blithe supposition; surely the Diversity Commission understands that women firing a .50-cal from the turret of a humvee during an ambush is far different than women working between the trails of a 155 howitzer during the week-plus battle at An-Nasiriyah or kicking-in doors and storming buildings during Fallujah-2.

A combat-arms MOS, primarily infantry and artillery, is different than picking up a rifle and defending oneself in an ambush. These MOS’s are physically far more challenging than the others, and that effort must be extended over a far longer period of time – for example during last February’s assault into Marjah, the rain, mud, and bitter weather caused more Marines to be medivaced for hypothermia than gunshot wounds; as motivated and ooh-rah as women can be, to lose too many Marines to hypothermia weakens the integrity and fighting ability of the platoon or squad at the worst possible moment. Pregnant women probably aren’t a plus on the front lines either.

Or to take an artillery gun crew, where the M-777 is typically manned by 7 Marines and a section chief. Added to the physical and mental stresses of combat, part of the physical requirements are the need to lift the generator (weighing 400 lbs) in order to emplace the leg, as well loading-unloading the helium bottles from the support truck- each truck carries 16 of the 135 lb bottles. Additionally, a 155 round weighs 95 lbs, the trails must be dug-in and emplaced…if 2or 3 Marines are replaced by women, is the gun still able to be operated and fired as per SOP, or has the 7 + 1 gun crew now ballooned to 8 + 1 or 9 + 1?

This isn’t meant to be a knock on women (full disclosure, my mother was a Marine; WW2-Sgt, S/F!), but rather a hard-look at the difference in roles of women in combat vs. women in combat arms.

There is no doubt that some women are motivated and capable of being an 0311 or an 0811, but clearly many more are not. “Moto” is good, but “Moto” doesn’t change the physiology of women not having the same upper body strength as men…which leads to a bigger problem: once the Pentagon opens the door to women in combat arms, the standards of acceptable performance will drop in order to allow more women to participate. Combat efficiency must remain the goal of those in combat arms, rather than “inclusiveness” and “diversity.” There are already women in the general and admiral ranks; surely these qualified women would not want the combat arms standards diluted on their account.

Which leads to the next interesting question; if the Pentagon and Congress is successful in turning the American military into a drone-flying, LCS-sailing, hi-tech weaponry  force operated by a money-oriented, G.E.D.-educated force…who will be left to actually get dirty and fight those swarthy unpleasant sorts who wish to harm the United States? One can only hope that in a country of 310 million citizens, there are still 202K or so who retain a higher motivation…