1
Oct
Women in Combat: When Practice Outdates Policy
by Sophia Hsu
0 Comments | Posted by thatgirl in 21st Century Bellist, That Girl
Since 2001, women have patrolled war zones, opened fire at enemy combatants and even died in hostile action. Yet regardless of their heroic sacrifices and immeasurable bravery, women are still derided as damsels to be protected by certain letters of the law.
The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mark a turning point for women at arms. Due to the unpredictable nature of insurgency, battlefields appear everywhere, thus blurring the distinction between combat and non-combat roles and propelling women into front lines for the first time at equal capacity with men. Cultural sensitivities make female troops indispensable when searching Muslim women during patrols, necessitating all-female search teams (dubbed the Lionesses) to accompany combat units. During conflict-heavy phases of war, U.S. enlistees are stretched thin, consequently forcing military leaders to use whatever man and woman power they have.
According to retired Lt. Colonel John Nagl, a counterinsurgency expert, “We literally could not have fought [in Iraq] without women.” 
The House Armed Services Committee ignored these realities when it approved an amendment in 2005 barring female soldiers from serving in direct ground combat forces.
Specifically the law prohibits women from joining teams below brigade level whose sole purpose is direct ground combat — such as infantry, armor, Special Forces as well as most field artillery units — and from doing support jobs while living with those units. Endorsed as a way to protect women from ill-defined Army policies, the ban is as impractical as it is chauvinistic because it does little to keep up with the ever-changing face of warfare.
Supporters of this exclusion cite unit cohesion, sexual harassment and personal hygiene as critical reasons to keep women behind front lines. But these issues are simply matters of maturity and professionalism that must be expected of all soldiers at all times rather than merely in circumstances when women in combat arise. The reality is more than 356,000 female troops serve in the armed forces today, and their presence in war has had a transformative effect.
In 2004 and 2005, retired Lt. Colonel Michael Baumann led thirty women soldiers and six female officers in Baghdad. Though he followed military policy by assigning these women to a separate chemical company of the division, his superiors knew these women were essential members of his field artillery battalion.
To Baumann, the question over whether women can handle infantry work is obsolete. “Not only could [women] handle it, but in the same way as males,” he explains. “I would go out on patrols every single day with my battalion. I was with them. I was next to them. I saw with my own eyes. I had full trust and confidence in their abilities.”
So why do lawmakers continue to be naysayers? Women have fought and will continue to fight in combat regardless of legislation. And reports of their performance under fire repeatedly disprove critics’ claims.
As retired Navy Capt. Lory Manning declares, “We are waiting for the policy to catch up to the real-world practice.”