“Combat is two men armed with clubs standing toe-to-toe beating the sh-t out of each other until one dies.”
That was the succinct definition of combat by an Army battle buddy of mine in Iraq, a very highly decorated, extensively experienced Infantry senior officer. What does this extraordinarily accurate definition of combat mean for women who wish to serve in combat arms and are being told they have equal capabilities for the face-to-face fight as men? The short answer is: Size matters as does weight and pure physical capability for in-your-face actual combat.
What is the realistic truth of women in combat? You will not find out by the current media deluge of exaggerations by media pundits, politicians on the left and the right condemning the opinions of the other side, politically motivated misinformation spewed currently by flagrantly inappropriate and unprincipled flag officers and senior non-commissioned officers. These senior military “leaders” are either coerced or are blatantly touting gender equality in combat arms to line their own nests for promotions, enhanced job security, to preserve pensions and to eventually secure retirement jobs with defense contractors such as Raytheon as did our current Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a veteran, said that Tucker Carlson has no place in speaking about our military because he never served in our armed forces. If not those who have not served taking an interest in the single largest employer of our nation and government, then who? Remember that less than 6% (18 million) of our 330 million Americans have EVER served in our military. Less than one-half of 1 % currently serve on active duty or in the reserves and National Guard. Less than 10% of those serving at any time have ever been involved in actual face-to-face combat. It is therefore quite appropriate that those of our electorate who have not served in our military, let alone combat, be aware, informed and have an opinion about our military services and service members.
Recommended
A large part of the DoD’s current Social Justice crusade is related to women serving in combat: Most men and 98% of women cannot serve in combat, period. Seventy percent of our youth today cannot even qualify to serve in the military, let alone combat. When I state combat I mean, for the Army or Marine Corps Infantry, Armor, Artillery, and Special Operations Forces. Other branches are officially included by the Army as “Combat Arms,” to include Air Defense Artillery (ADA), Combat Engineers, Combat Aviation (pilots and aircrew). However, these latter branches have a number of jobs that are physically less demanding than the more traditional combat units.
That is not to say that there are significant physical demands on pilots, of the Army, Marines, and Air Force as well engineers and ADA, but those branches are simply less physically demanding than those for ground components of Combat Arms who actually clash with the enemy. Women can and do serve admirably in those military specialties as did Sen. Duckworth.
The fact is, most men cannot qualify to serve and not physically endure the rigors of Combat Arms demands for long periods of time without serious injuries or complete degeneration of their physiognomy to continue to meet the demands of combat service. An infantryman is often required to carry 80 to 120 pounds of gear on long ground movements. A 170-pound man is therefore required to carry 50% to 70% of his body weight for 10 to 15 miles per day on average. Compare that to a female in a combat role who weighs 115 pounds. That equates to 70 to 105% of her bodyweight. Men in combat arms constantly suffer a high percentage of physical injuries to back, shoulders, hips, and legs due to the heavy loads required. The vast majority of women would therefore even more rapidly become combat ineffective if subjected to the same requirements.
Other Combat Arms, Armor, Artillery, etc. have similar physical demands with large discrepancies demonstrating dramatically the differences in the capabilities of men and women. In addition, men and women in those “other Combat Arms” outside infantry and special operations are required often to fight as infantry when that necessity demands.
Then there is the issue of physical combat that is often required of combat arms. There are times when a combat soldier, as noted, must fight hand-to-hand with the enemy. Imagine a fight by peer men of size and weight as compared to a 170-to-200-pound man fighting 115-pound women. The result of such a mis-matched fight is disastrous for the woman as well as her combat buddies who rely on her to be as effective fighters as they are.
The draft based and historically sexually integrated Israeli Armed Forces solve some of these disparities by reducing the loads that their females must carry in combat. This places a literal disproportionate burden on the men serving with them. This is the dilemma of mis-matched physical strength that is faced daily by our culturally mandated sexually integrated civilian police and fire departments.
The additional fact of the very biological nature of men and women in close physical relationships by the nature of combat arms in war and in peacetime training. Men and women in combat arms live, work, eat, bath, and perform other bodily functions in close proximity necessitated by warfare. This causes stress and potential embarrassment, front line area logistical complications, and also can lead to unwelcome and disastrous fraternization.
It is a very rare female who can, like the very few females who have successfully completed Ranger training and recently Special Forces training who can “cut it” with the men in Combat Arms. I do believe that women should be allowed to volunteer for combat. However, realistically it is very rare, perhaps less than 1 to 3 percent of females who can physically, morally and therefore logically be integrated into primary Combat Arms units.
There is no reason for discrimination against women wishing to serve in combat arms in our military. The realistic solutions for integrating women are: One, that all women be allowed to test physically to the SAME standards as men to be considered for combat arms. Two, those that pass that equally difficult physical standard should be able to serve in Combat Arms if they qualify in the other intellectual standards in training prior to assignment. Those who cannot meet those standards would be liabilities, not assets, in combat.
Those women who cannot make the physical grade, can serve in Combat Support and Combat Service Support Military Occupation Specialties (of which there are 238,000). Those females who cannot meet those physical standards cannot and should not serve in Combat Arms. Those women can and should serve in other capacities.
Bill Wenger is a retired commercial real estate executive, college professor, and U.S. Army Infantry Airborne Ranger Colonel. He voluntarily served four combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan after initial military retirement. He served 42 years commissioned service. He earned five Master’s Degrees and has taught National Strategic Planning, the Operational Level of Warfare, business and U.S. History. His latest book is on Amazon: The Key to American Independence: Quantifying Foreign Assistance to the American Revolution.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member