While women still face numerous obstacles when it comes to serving in the military, one barrier is soon to be broken.
In an interview with the Navy Times Tuesday Adm. Jon Greenert said women would soon be welcome to participate in one of the military’s most elite units: — the Navy SEALs.
“Why shouldn’t anybody who can meet these [standards] be accepted? And the answer is, there is no reason,” Greenert said. “So we’re on a track to say, ‘Hey look, anybody who can meet the gender non-specific standards, then you can become a SEAL.’”
Greenert’s comments come just days after the news that two women will become the first ever to graduate from Army Ranger training. Despite these accomplishments, however, opponents to women serving as combatants on the ground continue to trot out expired arguments. Meanwhile, a number of other countries have had women integrated into their combat forces for years.
In 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta issued an order for women to be eligible for all available military positions. Since then, various services have been enacting tests to see if women can perform duties required by the most rigorous ground combat soldiers. Current Secretary of Defense Ash Carter will make a final decision about women in ground combat roles in January.
Women were officially granted permanent status into the armed forces in 1948 by Congress but their history of aiding the military dates back to the Revolutionary War. In 1991 women were authorized by Congress to fly combat missions and in 1993 they gained the right to serve on combat ships. Today, more than 200,000 women are on active-duty in the U.S. military.The U.S.’ decision came rather late compared to other Western countries.
“In reality, women are serving in the combat forces of many NATO militaries and have for 36 years; the Dutch let women join combat units in 1979,” a Washington Post op-ed written earlier this year said. “Other unmolested countries to take this step include all in Scandinavia, most British Commonwealth states, and many Western European countries.” On Tuesday, reports emerged of two women set to graduate from the grueling Army Rangers course. Despite the steps taken in recent years to integrate women into the military, they still aren’t able to perform the same duties as their male counterparts. For instance, while the two graduates of Army Ranger school made history this week, their historic accomplishment, the women are still barred from certain ground combat positions. “Pentagon policy currently bans women from serving in direct ground combat slots, which include infantry — like the Rangers — as well as armor, most artillery, and special-operations units,” according to Time.
“This is an historic, path-breaking achievement by two exceedingly fit, determined, and professionally competent women who literally `rucked up’ and `walked point’ for their gender,” former CIA director David Petraeus, himself a one-time ranger, said.
But some in the military still believe women shouldn’t serve on the ground. Some studies show women to be more prone to injuries like ACL tears, stress fractures, and other similar injuries. These studies fail to account that women also are more likely to report these injuries than men and if figures are adjusted to account for unreported injuries than the differences aren’t nearly as significant.
An op-ed from April in the Washington Post by former Marine infantry officer Dave Kelm, Irish Calvary officer Jayne Lawlor, and Nicole Martin, a physical therapist who worked with injured personnel, laid out some of the easily disputed arguments employed by opponents use.:
The fact is that many rank-and-file leaders, both male and female, continue to oppose the change. Some arguments are technical, and focus on physical abilities or provisioning logistics for two sexes. Other concerns are less tangible, like adverse effects to morale and discipline. Many simply contend that the new policy does not help the military win wars.
Most arguments against integrating women into combat units are anecdotal or based on traditional gender roles. As Kelm, Lawlor, and Martin argue, that available data will allow women to partake in combat positions and that the U.S. military should use such data to update their policy.
We propose that this is not an issue about women, but one of standards. Impartial officers already know this. Few of them, however, question how current guidelines were developed or when they were last re-evaluated; they just maintain that standards should not be lowered. Initiatives like the Marine Corps’ Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force might assist such a review by using performance-based data to inform updated, scientific standards.
As more scientific evidence is collected and minds are changed, the barriers for women in the military will fall. And in January, Defense Secretary Carter has the opportunity to place American servicewomen on par with those in other countries.