Print Article | Email Article | Write To Us

Daily News

Women Under Fire: New U.S. Battlefield Policy Faces Criticism (1424)

The recent decision allowing female soldiers in combat units ignores several serious problems, according to some informed observers.

02/06/2013 Comments (15)
Shutterstock

– Shutterstock

WASHINGTON — While many Americans appear to support a greater role for women in military combat, some Catholics worry that male soldiers’ instincts to protect women will cause serious problems for military operations.  

“If Catholic moral theology teaches that men must protect women and love them as Christ loved the Church, even to the point of death, then I cannot see any good coming from putting women into situations where, of necessity, they will be treated like men,” said defense analyst and military historian Stuart Koehl.

Koehl, a Melkite Greek Catholic layman, is a fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. He has spent more than 33 years as a consultant for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, several foreign military services and the intelligence community.

In a Jan. 31 interview, he told EWTN News that to his knowledge there has been no magisterial Catholic teaching on the issue of women in combat, attributing this to the “simple” reason that “nobody in his right mind ever considered sending women into combat before.”

On Jan. 24 Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey announced the end of a military rule barring women from combat units.

“Women have shown great courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield, contributed in unprecedented ways to the military’s mission and proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles,” Panetta said, adding that the Defense Department aims to fulfill its mission “with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.”

President Barack Obama in a Feb. 3 CBS interview said he had no hesitation sending women into combat “because women, as a practical matter, are now in combat.”

“They are serving. They are taking great risks. What we should not do is prevent them from advancing in an institution we all revere,” he said.

There are over 200,000 women in the U.S. military’s 1.4 million active personnel. Women presently fly aircraft in combat situations and are stationed on naval ships that can engage in combat.

Despite long-standing rules against women in ground combat, U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has put some women in non-combat units in harm’s way. Over 150 women service members have died on active duty in the two countries.

 

‘Ignoring Reality’

On the lifting of the ban, the Defense Department remarked that the Joint Chiefs of Staff intend to integrate women “to the maximum extent possible.”

 “I think it’s ridiculous,” JoAnn LaFave of Caledonia, Wisc., said in response. “I would be completely against that. It would seem to deny fallen human nature to think that men and women could serve equally side by side and there would not be repercussions.”

LaFave, a Catholic mother of twelve, is married to a former Marine officer and her son served as an enlisted Marine in Iraq.

In a Feb. 5 interview with EWTN News, she worried women in combat situations would not have the physical strength to carry a wounded soldier from the battlefield or perform other important combat tasks.

“It’s not fair to my son or my husband if the person fighting with them, their partner in the foxhole or their comrade on the field, is physically unable to perform those duties, because that would leave them more vulnerable.”

She also noted that the close quarters with women and separation from family would make it “very hard” for men to keep their marriage vows “in a very stressful situation” like combat.

LaFave attributed the policy change to “people who blindly want to see a result and completely ignore the reality of the situation.”

Military officials are split about whether women will serve as infantry troops or in elite special-operations units, The Wall Street Journal reports. Some say most women would be unable to meet the physical requirements.

 

Chaplain’s Perspective

Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty and retired U.S. Army reserve lieutenant colonel, said concerns about increasing women in combat positions are not intended to question women service members’ “courage, valor, dedication and desire to serve.”

“We are concerned about what this will do to commanders in the field, particularly in the special operations area, where they often have long deployments in remote areas,” said Crews, a non-denominational Christian minister for Grace Churches International who has endorsed 20 active military chaplains for his religious organization.

Crews said that as a Christian he believes that God created an innate characteristic in men “to protect and defend the women around him” and he wondered whether this will carry over to the battlefield in a way that would jeopardize military missions.

He told EWTN News there is also concern about what the decision means for Selective Service registration and the draft, if it is ever revived.

“Do moms and dads in the country want their 18-year-old daughters to be subject to a draft?” he asked. “That has not been discussed by the military.”

In his remarks, Koehl weighed in that opening combat specialties to women is “a mistake of monumental proportions.”

He said the change is driven “mainly by careerist feminist officers who believe their promotion prospects are hindered” by their inability to command military units categorized as combat units.

He said not many enlisted women will volunteer to serve in combat. Most recognize they lack the upper body strength of male recruits and they “quite properly” shun the harsh conditions of the battlefield.

“Being an infantryman is probably the worst job in the world,” he added.

 

Lowered Standards?

Koehl warned that the military will be under “great pressure” to set and fill quotas by arbitrarily assigning women to combat units and by relaxing physical standards until enough women pass.

Such a double standard would harm morale, as would romantic relationships between deployed soldiers, he said, echoing LaFave’s concerns.

“Just as the Church recognized it could not run mixed-sex monasteries, so the military will discover it cannot run mixed sex combat units, because biology and human nature cannot be suppressed, particularly under the stress of combat,” Koehl predicted.

He said men in the military will either subject women to “the same standards of behavior as men” or “follow their natural instincts and their upbringing, and try to shelter women from the harshness of combat, as they would either their kid sisters or their girlfriends.”

Koehl warned of “the moral hazard of placing young, single men and women into a hormone-fueled, stress-filled environment where, traditionally, sex has been one of the means by which soldiers decompress from combat.”

He also said the policy change will place women under more pressure “not to get pregnant.”

“Even married female soldiers will be nudged towards using contraceptives to avoid pregnancy and abortion to end (a pregnancy) that might interfere with a deployment or a mission.”

A January survey from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and The Washington Post found that about 66% of Americans support allowing women to serve in ground units that engage in close combat, while only 26% oppose doing so. Forty-seven percent think a combat role for women is a major change, while 47% think it is a minor change.

 

Capt. Katie Petronio

Marine Captain Katie Petronio, a combat engineer officer who was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, opposed putting women in infantry positions in a July 2012 essay for the Marine Corps Gazette.

“I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality,” she said in her article, “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal.”

Petronio questioned women’s physical ability to endure in combat. Despite her own history of athleticism, she said, long-term combat operations caused her severe health problems and stress, including compressed spine, muscle atrophy, and polycystic ovarian syndrome that caused her infertility.

She said this lack of longevity would hinder the advancement even of women who can successfully meet the rigorous standards of infantry officers.

Although Petronio expressed gratitude for those who had opened up women’s positions in the military, she said the Marine Corps should “embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps’ success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda.”

 

Filed under

Comments

Post a Comment

  For me, this was the last straw.  It is NOT my country nor my flag any longer. I will not support a country that puts its mothers and daughters in front line combat. As for the handful of women this supposedly ‘benefits’ - what about the wives thousands of miles away driven mad now with not just fears but suspicions.  As a man I am so ashamed for the men of my country. When a Muslim maniac shouted Allahu Akhbar and murdered 13 soldiers (all in a gun-free zone I may add) and it was declared a ‘work place accident’... I thought that was the last straw, but no…this is it.

As A Catholic pacifist, I see all sorts of things wrong with this.

Even for non-pacifist Catholics, I don’t see how one could justify enlisting (not “serving”) in a military that refuses to honor selective conscientious objection.

But putting that aside: the army already has double standards for recruits based on sex. There’s already a serious issue of rape in the military, which is a noteworthy way sex has been used to “decompress” from combat. And yes, the contraceptive/abortion issue is pertinent as well.

This is the work of political idealists who want to make it so that female politicians can say “I served in [America’s next Vietnam]” just like male politicians do. Perhaps there may be a little as well from careerist feminist soldiers (not “servicemembers”; don’t compare them to a priesthood) who are interested in glory, as if that’s a valid reason for joining the military.

This is just all kinds of wrong, really. Open homosexuality, confusion on God’s design, and confusion on what constitutes a just war. Or, for that matter, what constitutionally may be called a war—a standard no current theater of operation meets. Why have we not discouraged recruitment yet based on that last reason alone?

If society is now so crass as to be allow/encourage women to be officially assigned to combat positions, then they should be required to register for the draft once they hit 18. 

Before reading this article I didn’t have any clear objection or was I for woman in combat. Thank God there are people who think (on the subject), and are not afraid of staying their opinions. All the cons listed here, except maybe one, speak to me so clearly that now I can state that I am fully against this idea. Thank you for the article. I hope to see sobe good comments, too.

When I heard this in the news, I could not help what then Cardinal Ratzinger commented about women in the military (in God and the World, a conversation with Peter Seewald):

“It is false when people want men and women to be cut to the same measure and say that this tiny biological difference has absolutely no significance. That tendency is dominant nowadays. Personally it still horrifies me when people want women to be soldiers just like men, when they, who have always been the keepers of the peace and in whom we have always seen a counter-impulse working against the male impulse to stand up and fight, now likewise run around with submachine guns,showing that they can be just as warlike as the men.”

Oh no, this is not good.

This utterly denies our differences in nature. As a 25-year-old woman holding an honorable discharge from the US Air Force (and whose views have since changed after my conversion of heart to the Catholic faith), I have seen the detriment to our country brought about by including women in roles that we weren’t created for, and by putting men and women in close, insufficiently-separated proximity.

I am so sick of lawmakers following politically correct cries so as to save face and garner media support at the expense of others.

The devil is using the same tactic as he did in the Garden of Eden: he brings down a society by corrupting its women, for we women are supposed to be the moral peg from which society hangs.

May the Lord have mercy on us, and our Lady, she who is blessed among women, pray for us and for a renewal of authentic lives of virtue among men and women.

Women have been combatant soldiers for years in Israel.
Israel is the only country in the world with a mandatory military service requirement for women. The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that “The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.”  As of now, 88% to 92% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.
The mental and physical strength of the individual should determine who can and can not serve in certain capacities rather than gender alone.
The safety of everyone must be considered.

Seeing men returning from combat tours in Afghanistan and the Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome they endure, and watching women playing a good and hard tackle football game (ever?), well, it seems to me women have been deluded by an ever-liberal media into thinking they can actually contribute to a physical combat situation is laughable.  From any perspective it is absolutely ludicrous.  They want to believe it, but when the first body bags of females return it will be a sobering occasion to see how we are constantly abusing women in the U.S.  And they don’t even seem to understand it.  Women did have it much better 50 years ago.  My grandparents, aunts and uncles (the men fought in WWII) and parents and as a youngster the homicidal men who returned from Korea (one live just next door), they would all be befuddled by this naive desire fro wmen to die like that.

I retired from 26 years of naval service. While I realize that the military is not a democratic organization, I would like to see a survey of military men on this issue. I believe the vast majority would be against women in combat.

What does God say about this? He told Moses to take a census of all able-bodied Israelites, over the age of 20 that are fit for combat and this DID NOT INCLUDE WOMEN.  Panetta needs to be removed and Obama should have been impeached four years ago, when he took his first “oath”, an oath that he had no intention to keep.  GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED and His Day is coming.  +JMJ+

This social ‘progression’ on the part of the depraved libs is socially suicidal. People have got to wake up, stop being so very ignorant and stupid and stop putting these crazy people into positions of power and authority over them. The nation can’t take this.

I was taking field training together with females. One of them slipped from the climbing wall and I ‘instinctively’ reached out to avoid her injuring herself. In the process I was injured. I believe I would not have made that move if it was a fellow male. Why? Protect the female instinct I believe. How long for that to change? Also, what an outcry when we are informed that our female war prisoners are being raped.

Were not the female of our species created by God to be the life-beares and nurtures of the human race? How, then, can they be called upon to Kill others who God created in His own image?

In all, more than 400 military women lost their lives during World War II. In 1944 U.S. Army Nurse Aleda E. Lutz of Freeland Michigan was the first U.S. military woman to die in a combat zone during World War II when her hospital plane went down on her 196th rescue mission.
16 American Military women died during the Korean War.
14 American Military women died during Desert Storm.
Many more were killed in Iraq. - Here is only one - Lance Cpl. Holly A. Charette, 21, from Cranston, R.I., died June 23 from wounds sustained when a suicide, vehicle-borne, improvised explosive device struck her vehicle in Fallujah, Iraq. She was assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Pray for all of our Soldiers- men and women.

CCC: ” 2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations.
If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. “

Post a Comment

By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.

The time period for commenting on this article has expired.