Note* The following is from an email response to an Air Force Captain who wrote a letter (attacking another servicemember's postition on the subject) in defense of women in the military. The purpose of my response was to bring some sense of balance to the discussion from the perspective of the combat arms. Undoubtedly, some readers will be angry at my response. Fine, so poke holes in the logic of the argument, not the one who advances the argument. It is usually quite difficult to have a rational discussion with anyone who has an emotional investment in the subject matter. The good captain's name has been X'd out to protect his privacy.

I read with interest Captain xxx xxxxxx’s response to the issue of woman in the military (quoted in pertinent part below). The beauty of discourse is that reasonable people may bring their facts and prejudices to the table and try to persuade others to embrace their viewpoint. To be effective at persuasion, of course, one must build one's arguments from the most accurate and relevant facts and temper that with the broadest and deepest range of experience available. Even then, differences will still exist. Generally, that is no big deal but when the issues are life and death, or the continued existence of the American Ideal, the stakes are much higher.

Captain xxxxxx’s comments: "While females in the military do create some problem situations, some of the misogynous comments below compel me to respond (see below). I believe in equal opportunity for women in the military, and not just because it's the official policy that I'm required to follow. Please forgive my bluntness, but an attitude change on the part of the author as well as his troops is needed." (referring to another article, not contained herein, where the author detailed his own negative experiences with females in his unit.)

My response: Misogyny is defined by Webster as the hatred of women. One may hold a rational viewpoint on the effectiveness/desirability of women in the military without hating woman. ( I am such a person). I also appreciate bluntness; it is much more efficient in getting to heart of the matter. As for an attitude change, I would agree with xxxxxx’s statement if an attitude change would make the problem go away. Since he agrees that woman "do create some problem situations" our analysis should focus on "what problems" and with "what results".

For any position to be credible, it must be evaluated in light of reason and separated from emotional rhetoric. The question is: Is the mission of the military adversely effected by woman and if, so, to what extent and in what areas? The answer would fill a book (presently in the works).

I would hope that we could all agree that maximum military effectiveness is the primary purpose of the armed forces. I would further hope that we could all agree that anything degrading that effectiveness should be prohibited/removed unless there is a compelling benefit that cannot be otherwise realized.

I submit that traditional performance evaluation standards are effective in determining force maximization and manpower allocation. In other words, what does it take to accomplish the military mission with the fewest casualties and with the most efficiency. Those standards are not gender-specific or race-specific or age specific. Rather, all performers are measured against the standard and not against each other. If a soldier/sailor/airman cannot meet the standard, they are out. If the standards are high enough to meet the criteria for the leanest, meanest, toughest, fighting force capable of being deployed, then at least two things will be true: first, there will be almost no women; and second, it will be the finest, most efficient killing machine that America can muster. No offense meant, but that is, after all, the purpose of a military force. It is NOT the purpose of the military to provide equal opportunity for employment, education, or training to any person or group.

When the process becomes politicized however, the objectives are obscured and the mission is redefined in terms of social engineering. The ambitions of politicians cause the arguments to take on emotional overtones and "fuzzy" terminology clouds the truth. Citizens must be wary (and professional warriors must be especially wary) of a hidden agenda couched in emotionally charged (but intellectually bankrupt) phrases and soundbites.

The truth, for anyone interested in availing themselves of the facts, is that the "mission-capability" of our military (all assets- not just one branch of service or specialty) is the lowest it is been in modern history. Naval aviators are leaving in droves while aircraft are being cannibalized for parts; Army combat forces cannot train with live ammo; There are inferior/under-qualified officers being promoted based on gender "norming"; sexual harassment charges have sky-rocketed, abortions in military hospitals has risen dramatically, morale is low, low, low. During the gulf war, one of my friends commanded a tanker company (petroleum,oils, and lubricants or POL) and reported that of the 29 females in the company, 27 of them got either got pregnant or developed some debilitating "female" problems within the first two months. (Fortunately, I was in a combat infantry unit so these stories are not my own!) In Panama, female truck drivers refused to drive their deuce and a halfs in the direction of the gunfire. Another friend of mine commanded a hawk missile unit which required despooling some heavy control cable. The women assigned to the task couldn't perform it and if the unit was to function, the men had to do that job as well as their own. Another friend, an Army Reserve platoon leader with excellent OER's (fitness reports), was replaced by a junior ranking female (who was passed over for promotion twice in the Regular Army before sent to the reserves) and caused such morale problems that half the platoon quit or transferred. Female pilots are sometimes given ratings which they are unqualified to hold in order to be "politically correct". With increasing frequency, female Air Force and Naval Officers have posed fully nude for men's magazines, with a predictable credibility problem then developing with their subordinates and their superiors. The stories are far too numerous to be written off as "exceptions". To be sure, there are many women in the services whose devotion to duty and performance excellence is equal to their male peers and a book could/should be written to honor those brave patriots. The point here is not to malign those women but to illustrate the type and number of problems that are happening every single day of every single week because of women in our armed forces.

When performance standards are modified to accommodate a group with "special" needs, or better qualified candidates are replaced by lesser qualified (or unqualified) personnel so as to "gender norm" the unit, then the ability of the military to defend America is in serious question. To be sure, some of the low morale and lack of readiness is also the result of funding cuts and congressional abandonment. Some is the result of our failed foreign policies and lack of confidence in the commander-in-chief. Part of the problem is caused by shifting our strategy to an extreme reliance on high-tech intelligence and weapons systems which can be (not coincidentally) operated by women. This increases the ratio of females to males which must certainly be a political objective of any senior officer who wants to promote or any congressman who wants to be re-elected. But a huge proportion of the problem (morale and readiness) lies with the obvious disconnect between promise and performance. We simply cannot afford to embrace a concept that is fatally flawed.

The concept of a mixed gender military has not been well-received by experienced soldiers (this term includes all service members). Ultimately, maximum military efficiency calls for every person in uniform to be a combat soldier first, then a cook, typist, mechanic or "other duties as assigned". The new "politically correct" Army (Air Force, Marines, Navy) may be kinder and gentler but it is innefficient as our nation’s first line of defense. This decline may be attributed, in large part, to the "attitude change" which one finds in today’s military establishment. The ole-timers (hard-liners, traditionalists, pragmatists, etc.) have mostly bailed out or holding on for the last year or two ‘till retirement. Today’s soldier/sailor/airman is likely to have undergone the "attitude change" that Capt. xxxxxx suggests is sorely needed. What has that "attitude change" given us in return? What has history taught us about woman in the military and woman in combat? What countries have developed and maintained the idea of mixed gender military?

I avail myself to "non-approved" sources of intel within the military community so my anecdotal evidence is not generally found in the mainstream military media. My personal interviews with hundreds of Army and Navy officers and senior NCO’s (over age 35 so they have a frame of reference within which to compare the current state) lead solidly to a general conclusion from the perspective of the guys on the line. Politics in general, and woman in particular, have created (or exacerbated) low morale, heightened anxiety, an abysmal state of un-preparedness which, aggravated by budgets cuts, makes these experienced veterans leave the service in unprecedented numbers.

I will leave to the reader to decide whether my response is motivated by hatred for women or love for my country. I have avoided emotional language which gives heat but no light to the relevant issues. I respect Captain xxxxxxx’s opinion but, having spent eleven years in the Army (mostly combat arms) and interviewed hundreds of men and women (Graduate research work and a book project), I have reached opposite conclusions. The military service is not the appropriate vehicle for social experimentation. In the words of my Grandad, "Don’t gamble what you can’t afford to lose!"

John Sterling, (former) Capt., Inf., USAR

email to johsnter@erols.com

Updated on 10 March 1999