Georgia’s female warriors weighed the news that combat jobs will be opened to women from two vantage points: as modern women and as veterans of modern wars. For some, the two responses were in conflict.
Capt. Carlissa Carson, who served in Army intelligence and lives in Atlanta, welcomed the move by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. She said it validates women’s contributions while correcting a pervasive misconception.
“This ban caused civilians … to truly believe that women were not in combat, and that certainly has not been the case for several years now,” said Carson, 28, who is also a judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force.“Women have been in combat situations without being afforded the opportunity to claim it (on their service history).”
But Sgt. Crystal Spears, who served in Iraq as an Army medic, said she is concerned about the move on a number of levels. She’s skeptical that women can meet the physical demands of many specialized jobs. And even if they could, she’s worried male counterparts will be distracted by protecting female soldiers in battles against enemies whose cultures restrict women.
“I hate to say this, because I am so pro-women,” said Spears, 29, of Columbus. But “we are targets as females, unfortunately, at least with the war we are fighting. And that also puts all the men we are with in jeopardy.”
Panetta’s decision, announced Thursday with the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, comes months after four servicewomen filed a federal lawsuit against the Defense Department for its 1994 “combat exclusion policy.” The Service Women’s Action Network and the American Civil Liberties Union are among the parties supporting the women’s suit.
Nationally, Panetta’s move was hailed by many women as a toppling of the last gender barrier in a male-dominated military. Proponents said it gives women overdue recognition and compensation for risks they’re already taking. It also opens up leadership opportunities that until now have been off-limits.
Women account for about 15 percent of the U.S. Armed Forces with more than 200,000 female members. Despite being officially barred from combat roles, 152 female soldiers died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Lifting the ban will open up some 230,000 combat jobs to female military personnel, according to the Associated Press. Most of the openings will be in Army and Marine units. The change will be implemented over the course of months, according to the Defense Department, with many details still to be worked out.
Brig. Gen. Wilma Vaught, head of the Women In Military Service For America Memorial Foundation, Inc., said the change may mean revamping facilities to accommodate women. It may also involve education for leaders on how to integrate women into historically male units, as well as assessing individual jobs and the requirements necessary to perform them, she said.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, addressed the last point at a Thursday press conference. Dempsey said the services must review the requirements for each job, with the understanding that if the standards effectively exclude women, the burden is on the military to explain why they should remain in place.
Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions should remain closed to women.
Several female veterans interviewed for this story said physical qualifications for the most demanding jobs should not change significantly to accommodate female soldiers.
“Either you can do these things or you can’t do these things,” Vaught said. “And if you can’t, you shouldn’t be there, because physically you are unable to do the job.”
Women can handle the mental and emotional toll of war, said Spc. Katherine Rudder, who served from 2005 to 2010 in the Army and is now in the Army reserves.
“But physically, there are differences,” said Rudder, who lives in Columbus and whose husband is in the infantry. She opposes Panetta’s decision.
Carson, however, points out that lifting the ban merely gives women the chance to compete for the jobs.
“A man can’t just decide to be a Ranger or be in the special forces. He has to go through a long specialized training program and prove himself mentally, physically and emotionally,” she said. “Women will have to do the same.”
Regardless of whether they are for or against women serving in combat roles, many said the military must do more to prepare soldiers for the integration and address the issue of sexual assaults.
“I believe this opens up a critical conversation that we ought to be having … A female member of the Armed Forces is more likely to be raped or assaulted by a member of her own team than she is by an enemy,” said Goldie Taylor, a Marine veteran and Atlanta-based opinion writer, who supports Panetta’s decision.
“There is an entire cultural issue to be addressed here about how women and men serve side-by-side,” Taylor said.
Dempsey said Thursday that lifting the ban may curb sexual assaults by prompting men to regard women as equal soldiers. Vaught would like to think he’s right.
“He believes making women full-fledged members, rather than as thinking of her as a second class citizen, may help in that arena,” she said. “I certainly hope so, but I’m unsure, to be perfectly honest.”
About the Author
