As a new year brings the prospect of further transformation in military affairs, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) in London is said to be, “leaning towards making the change” to allow women to serve in front line combat units. A six month study, while not providing conclusive recommendations (further research is said to be required) has at least assuaged some of the doubts surrounding a peculiarly contentious issue.
While women make up 10% of the strength of the British Armed Forces, restrictions to date have prevented their serving in infantry regiments, armoured regiments and the Royal Marines: units in which the primary combat role is “to close with the enemy and kill them.” Given the panoply of issues surrounding gender politics in British society (as elsewhere) it has become increasingly difficult, in recent years, to maintain these restrictions, when allies such as Australia, Canada, and the US have turned that particular corner and altered their regulations appropriately.
Protagonists of change ask the question “why not?” Antagonists roll out sound but increasingly tired arguments that women are not physically strong enough, are more prone to injury than men and will be disruptive of the unit cohesion and morale of small tactical operational units that form the core of our armed forces’ response to the type of expeditionary operations in our present and foreseeable future. But are those the right arguments?
Are women, on the whole, less strong than men? Childbirth requires strength, both physical and mental, to degrees that most men would hesitate to face with equanimity, were it biologically possible. Are women more prone to injury than men? There is some evidence from Afghan operations that carrying heavy loads for long period is more problematic for women than for men – but is this a sufficiently strong reason to deny them entry to combat units, should they desire to do so?
Does the presence of women in military units serving in operational conditions cause insuperable morale or cohesion problems? Again, it depends to a large extent on the woman, but evidence to date suggests that the type of woman who has a desire to serve in the military has the mental fortitude and common sense to deal with potential issues effectively, often before they rise to the level of a problem.
The answers to these questions may have been clearer in the past, but recent years have seen significant changes take place in the manner and means by which warfare is waged. Furthermore, to a degree women already service in the front line, so why is there any question in the first place? In Afghanistan, where the front line is porous and lacks definition, British forces have lost a total of 453 personnel, including MoD civilians. Of this number, 404 have died as a result of “hostile action.” Seven of the British casualties have been women.
Women already effectively serve in the front line, as medics or as intelligence officers, for example, and run the same risks as their male counterparts. The Royal Navy has already had its first female commander of a warship – the Type 23 frigate HMS PORTLAND – and few would deny that an anti-submarine frigate is de facto a combat unit. Looking towards Europe, Norway already has its first female submarine commander and the Germany Navy appointed its first female submarine officer last year, a woman whose career may well take her to command in the future. In Afghanistan some while ago, I interviewed a female military police officer from the Slovak Republic hours before she deployed to Mazar-e-Sherif.
The remaining concerns in London, therefore, would seem to rest on an imponderable. If the restrictions are lifted and women apply for combat units, they will be held to the same exacting standards as men, which is right and fitting. If too few meet these standards, however, the fear is that pressure will be brought to bear to lower the bar to get more of them through, or to establish separate gender-specific standards. That is a legitimate concern. But it can only be overcome, surely, by at least trying to implement a change in policy and then making decisions based on experience rather than prejudice.
If the MoD leans far enough to implement a change that would be historic, it should be applauded for overcoming concepts that have been centuries in the making. If women want to serve in combat units, they should be given every opportunity to prove their suitability and – once proven – to be treated equably and fairly. Why not?
 |
| The UK MoD is said to allow women so serve in front line combat units. German female soldiers (shown) do not have that privilege yet. |
While women make up 10% of the strength of the British Armed Forces, restrictions to date have prevented their serving in infantry regiments, armoured regiments and the Royal Marines: units in which the primary combat role is “to close with the enemy and kill them.” Given the panoply of issues surrounding gender politics in British society (as elsewhere) it has become increasingly difficult, in recent years, to maintain these restrictions, when allies such as Australia, Canada, and the US have turned that particular corner and altered their regulations appropriately.
Protagonists of change ask the question “why not?” Antagonists roll out sound but increasingly tired arguments that women are not physically strong enough, are more prone to injury than men and will be disruptive of the unit cohesion and morale of small tactical operational units that form the core of our armed forces’ response to the type of expeditionary operations in our present and foreseeable future. But are those the right arguments?
Are women, on the whole, less strong than men? Childbirth requires strength, both physical and mental, to degrees that most men would hesitate to face with equanimity, were it biologically possible. Are women more prone to injury than men? There is some evidence from Afghan operations that carrying heavy loads for long period is more problematic for women than for men – but is this a sufficiently strong reason to deny them entry to combat units, should they desire to do so?
 |
| Violent jihadis know their reward will come in heaven, in the shape of 72 virgins - but not apparently if they are killed by women. There are all-women Peshmerga units to fend off Isil forces who are threatening to overrun their homeland. |
Does the presence of women in military units serving in operational conditions cause insuperable morale or cohesion problems? Again, it depends to a large extent on the woman, but evidence to date suggests that the type of woman who has a desire to serve in the military has the mental fortitude and common sense to deal with potential issues effectively, often before they rise to the level of a problem.
The answers to these questions may have been clearer in the past, but recent years have seen significant changes take place in the manner and means by which warfare is waged. Furthermore, to a degree women already service in the front line, so why is there any question in the first place? In Afghanistan, where the front line is porous and lacks definition, British forces have lost a total of 453 personnel, including MoD civilians. Of this number, 404 have died as a result of “hostile action.” Seven of the British casualties have been women.
Women already effectively serve in the front line, as medics or as intelligence officers, for example, and run the same risks as their male counterparts. The Royal Navy has already had its first female commander of a warship – the Type 23 frigate HMS PORTLAND – and few would deny that an anti-submarine frigate is de facto a combat unit. Looking towards Europe, Norway already has its first female submarine commander and the Germany Navy appointed its first female submarine officer last year, a woman whose career may well take her to command in the future. In Afghanistan some while ago, I interviewed a female military police officer from the Slovak Republic hours before she deployed to Mazar-e-Sherif.
The remaining concerns in London, therefore, would seem to rest on an imponderable. If the restrictions are lifted and women apply for combat units, they will be held to the same exacting standards as men, which is right and fitting. If too few meet these standards, however, the fear is that pressure will be brought to bear to lower the bar to get more of them through, or to establish separate gender-specific standards. That is a legitimate concern. But it can only be overcome, surely, by at least trying to implement a change in policy and then making decisions based on experience rather than prejudice.
If the MoD leans far enough to implement a change that would be historic, it should be applauded for overcoming concepts that have been centuries in the making. If women want to serve in combat units, they should be given every opportunity to prove their suitability and – once proven – to be treated equably and fairly. Why not?
Tim Mahon
No comments:
Post a Comment