Research Paper on Women in Combat: The Combat Integration Initiative

Introduction

There has been a history of women in combat, but with minimal participation and things have not changed much in the current times. A few years ago, the government allowed, for the time ever, the integration of women into some of its significant facets of military and combat roles such as armor, infantry, and special operator communities through what was termed as the combat integration initiative (CII). The program received broad acceptance as women flocked in large numbers asking to be accepted for the program. So far, neither the military nor the defense and security minister has been willing to comment on the success of the program as a whole. They offered that by the year 2020, the analysis of the results obtained from all the studies will be enough to draw an informed conclusion. But the bottom line remains that women are not meant for the infantry and further developments in the combat integration program will only do more harm than good. The following discussion represents an argument in support of this thesis statement.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Thinking about wars and the protection of a country brings to mind a picture of strong men taking up combat roles and giving up their lives for the sake of their country. Allowing women to take up combat roles is a dangerous and precarious move if a statement made by the Secretary of defense, Jim Mattis, who is a retired General for the United States' Marine Corps is anything to go by. Acco0rding to Mattis, regardless of their initial natural inclination to make the program open to all, they could not push through something that made no sense from a military point of view. Additionally, every citizen desires to have an opportunity to put their patriotism into actions but allowing women into combat could bring along an array of issues creating more damage than the intended good.

Our United States military is the most elite fighting force on the planet that has been successful in all cases to ensure our freedom. Though the saying "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" may be from the stone-age, it is more recent in today's world than ever before. Our military has endured tremendous accomplishments in the past and continues to thrive, so there is no good enough reason justifying why that should be changed by something completely avoidable. The real question is, why would we jeopardize something as important as our freedom to allow equal opportunity in combat? The Marine Corps was one of the only branches that were against this, so they decided to design a study to prove why using a series of studies subjected to different units. Three units, one with only male combatants and the other two with mixed gender combatants, were exposed to an experiment to determine the plausibility of the combat integration program.

The experiments were highly controlled, and the data obtained thoroughly analyzed because the conclusions had a vital role to play in the determination of whether the initiative would be pushed forward of stopped. This experiment involved 400 Marines, roughly 25 percent of whom were women. They conducted this study for nine months that consisted of an all-male unit and two mixed-gender groups. According to the Marine Corps Times, the all-male unit outperformed both mixed-gender units in 69 percent of the 134-ground combat task that was evaluated (Hope Hodge Seck). The study reported very few combat tasks in which the mixed gender units did better than those comprising only of men. This is regardless of whether the members of the units had received combat training or were from jobs of non-combat nature.

Several reasons are cited to explain the poor performance of the combat integration initiative. For example, women have a natural instinct to nurture and feel obligated to care for people. In the wake of this instinct, personal relations may develop, especially in the mixed gender troops. This will increase drama and decrease the unit's morale and cohesion. Corporal Remedios Cruz, former Sergeant in infantry within the United States Marine Corps, lost rank and was discharged for the service on fraternization charges. Cruz stated, "The biggest mistakes I've made in the infantry were from my personal relationships" (Ernst). Now, imagine that Cruz must make a quick decision while in combat to either save her significant other's life or save hundreds of lives. I believe that this should not even have to be considered. In the battlefield, even a hesitation as insignificant as one second could bring about catastrophic outcomes which one more reason why women do not belong in combat.

Of all the places and setting that crimes such as sexual harassment and abuse could be perpetrated, one would refute that a military unit could be one of them. This is especially if the victims and the perpetrators are members of those same units. Abuse on women in the military has become a top focus for authorities. The integration of women in combat roles increases the rate of violence towards women. Deployed women exposed to combat-like experiences reported a 20 percent incidence rate of sexual harassment and a 4 percent rate of sexual assault (Olsen). That's nearly double the frequency of the United States Marine Corps, who have the highest rate amongst the other branches of similar calling.

Olsen reports an increase in the rate of sexual abuse against women, especially those in combat; whether it is in terms of unwanted advances or outright assault. These factors impact negatively on the cohesion of the combat unit. They cause those involved to lose faith in the respective other and the attitudes with which they treat their assigned tasks. For instance, the man could cause the woman to be disrespected and stigmatized by her colleagues while a woman could cause the end of a man's military career. This is dangerous because these people face much worse adversaries and are expected to protect and save each other. This further enhances the point that combat roles are not a good fit for women.

Combat readiness and women acceptance in combat or other related service provisions is another concern. For instance, a study aimed at establishing the correlation between the mean cohesion and the combat readiness of women in the junior enlisted soldiers and non-listed officers, especially male (Rosen et al.). The study indicates that there exists a negative correlation between the mean cohesion and combat readiness in women as compared to men. This is deduced from the reported number of women and men who expected to be deployed with their units after the completion of their training (Rosen et al.). The results indicate that the acceptance of women in the troops, especially for the junior enlisted male units, led to increased rates of combat readiness and cohesion among members of the same unit (Rosen et al.). However, the results change to declining rates of cohesion and combat readiness if the number of women in the unit continued to increase. This implies that even though women might curve a niche for themselves in combat roles, there is a lot of work to be done to that effect.

The debates about women in combat roles have continued for a long time. It is evident that men in these roles are opposed to the idea that women in the military and combat roles should be treated equally (Cohn). They raise several arguments in this regard by voicing their opinions and emphasizing their experiences. For example, the standard discourse otherwise commonly called the physical training protest. This, when men and women in combat are subjected to different standards of physical training in readiness for their roles (Cohn). This creates animosity and sometimes anger towards women in the military and combat roles because it is sometimes interpreted as favoritism (Cohn). This results in declining levels of respect for women in these positions and further pushes the prevalent notion that women should not make the cut to join such posts (Cohn).

Books, articles, and reports even from ancient times indicate that society has never allowed women to pursue their dreams and goals in the military and combat on the same level as men (Wojack). Women are portrayed as weak and are often idealized. This is proven by the fact women who have managed to make the cut for combat roles are not allowed to participate in some of the jobs mainly but not limited to special forces, cannon artillery, combat engineering, and short-range air defense (Wojack). The reason for the justification of this exclusion points out that women cannot handle as much physical work as compared to a man (Wojack). Also, it is pointed out that these job categories are much more demanding than is possible for a woman to satisfy (Wojack). Additionally, when women are included in combat roles, combat readiness is put at risk due to reduced group cohesion, not to mention that military and combat roles have been a male-dominated arena traditionally.

The push for the integration of women in combat is attributed to feminists' efforts in an attempt to push for women equality and reduce radicalization. Reports indicate that women involved in the military and combat roles put in as much work as men do. They are killed in action, just like their male colleagues. For instance, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars resulted in the death of very many female combatants (Eager). Wars on gender have been part of public debates for the longest time. The shift in warfare and international politics have given rise to varying views about the integration of women in combat. When politics become part of an argument, most often than not, it is a subtle way of dismissing it; keeping it in the public eye for a while and then tossing it out. As a result, the conclusion that women do not belong in combat roles is further emphasized.

Traditionally, the military and other combat roles have been predominantly fields for men. It is for this reason that women are barred from succeeding in these fields. The way the society perceives women; fragile, weak, and always needs looking after, continue to emphasize that women do not belong in combat. For it to be healthy for a woman to be part of a military or combat unit, radical changes on both sides of the spectrum have to occur (Segal). Firstly, society has to change its attitudes towards women and view them from a different perspective, making them more suited for combat roles (Segal). Also, the military and combat roles have to be presented as changed by both the society and the policymakers such that it becomes more accommodating to women (Segal). However, such changes are just but mere ideas, it would take a long time for them to, and the fact remains that women are not suited for combat roles.

The social structure of a given nation is another indicator of the reason women are not fitted for combat and military roles. Effectors of the social structure such as the economy contribute significantly to the participation of women in these fields (Segal). When the level of unemployment is high at a given time, both men and women are jobless. In the event of openings in the military and combat-related jobs, the men always get the priority. Women are tied down by traditional and cultural roles of being mothers. Also, in most cases, women are perceived as reserve aid in these fields, and since the unemployment creates a constant supply of young men, the participation of women in combat significantly declines (Segal). Additionally, according to (Segal), the family structure in most states dictates that the male, the head of the family, is more suited to combat roles as compared to the female, the caretaker of the family.

Summary

Documented evidence indicates clearly that women have significantly impacted on security sector through their participation in the military and combat jobs. Women were part of the World Wars and other para...