Ever since mankind learned to harness the power of bone and rock, wars have been fought countless amounts of times for an innumerable amount of reasons. Although technology has progressed greatly over the millennia, the core of virtually any fighting force has still remained the same: the male warrior. In recent years, politicians have been breathing down the backs of military leaders to place women in combat roles, despite it being increasingly evident that the vast majority do not meet the same standards as men. Politicians need to see the military as an efficient fighting force meant for national defense, and not as a control group for social experimentation.
On Jan. 24, 2013, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the ban preventing women from serving in combat roles would be lifted. This news was considered a victory for social activists, but many members of the military met this with concern. Between the time of that announcement and the end of 2015, the Pentagon had a number of experiments underway to see if women could pass vigorous training programs such as the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course and the Army’s Ranger School. No woman completed the infantry officer course and only three women completed ranger school.
With the promise already made to incorporate women by 2016, fears began to arise among the active military that standards would be lowered for this promise to be kept in the face of the overall failure of the experiments. Last month, a retiring Marine General said his “greatest fear” was that high-ranking military leaders will be egged on by politicians to increase the amount of female soldiers in combat units, and the way to do so would be to lower standards.
Back in 2013, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, said, “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary: Why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” It is absolutely disturbing that political figures would attempt to influence standards into being lowered for the sake of a policy standpoint. The standards that are set for men are the standards which women must attain, and if they cannot attain them, then they do not merit the position they seek. The idea of lowering a physical standard for the sake of politics is a threat to national security, and lower standards means a less-effective and less-trained force.
Even for the women who do meet the standards, more problems will persist. With the average combat soldier being a young male, a sex-driven and hormonal demographic, bringing women in to share a foxhole with them would be a negative distraction. Men bond among one another, as can be seen in civilian life; this bond is amplified under the stresses of combat. A woman being inserted into this brotherhood would completely change the group dynamic; men would, due to their nature, seek the attention of that woman, and strain amongst the competing men would be a problem for military leaders who need complete dedication to the mission at hand.
With today’s tumultuous world, the United States faces many threats, and it must rely on the strength of its military. With that said, social experimentation has no place within the confines of a fighting force, and doing so will simply bring about a weakened military through lower readiness and lower morale.